ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Antibiofilm Property of Silver Diamine Fluoride Against Elected Periodontal Pathogens: An In Vitro Study.
Article in International dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate the antibiofilm effects of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) against key periodontal pathogens.
methodsSingle-species biofilms of the periodontal pathogens Porphyromonas gingivalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, as well as their consortium biofilm, were established on glass coverslips by anaerobic incubation for 72 hours. Mature biofilms were subsequently treated with 38% SDF solution for three minutes. Biofilm viability was assessed using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Biofilm morphology and ultrastructure were examined via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM), respectively. 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) served as a positive control, while phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) served as a negative control.
resultsCLSM showed that the percentage of viable cells in biofilms treated with SDF, CHX and PBS was 9.67% ± 1.53%, 31.33% ± 4.73%, and 89% ± 3.61% for Porphyromonas gingivalis; 6.33% ± 0.58%, 33.33% ± 4.73%, and 75.67% ± 8.74% for Fusobacterium nucleatum; 6.67% ± 1.53%, 29.33% ± 4.04% and 83.33% ± 7.37% for Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, and 8% ± 1%, 31.33% ± 2.52%, and 74.67% ± 6.66% for the multi-species biofilm (p < .001; SDF<CHX<PBS). SEM images confirmed that SDF markedly disrupted biofilm morphology, leading to greater reductions in biofilm density than CHX. TEM analysis further demonstrated that SDF induced severe ultrastructural damage, including abnormal membrane curvature and disruption of cytoplasmic and cell wall integrity.
conclusion38% SDF shows stronger antibiofilm activity than 0.2% CHX against key periodontal pathogens, markedly reducing biofilm viability and disrupting structural integrity. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These in vitro findings support further evaluation of SDF as an adjunct to conventional periodontal therapy, particularly in patients at high risk of biofilm-mediated periodontal disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.