4.7 Review

Peptide Designs for Use in Caries Management: A Systematic Review

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24044247

关键词

antimicrobial; caries; peptides; prevention; remineralisation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to review the design methods used for peptides in caries management. Two researchers systematically reviewed in vitro studies and assessed bias risk. The review identified 3592 publications, of which 62 were selected. Template-based design method and conjugation method were the most commonly used in developing peptides for caries management.
The objective of this study was to review the design methods that have been used to create peptides for use in caries management. Two independent researchers systematically reviewed many in vitro studies in which peptides were designed for use in caries management. They assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. This review identified 3592 publications, of which 62 were selected. Forty-seven studies reported 57 antimicrobial peptides. Among them, 31 studies (66%, 31/47) used the template-based design method; 9 studies (19%, 9/47) used the conjugation method; and 7 studies (15%, 7/47) used other methods, such as the synthetic combinatorial technology method, the de novo design method and cyclisation. Ten studies reported mineralising peptides. Seven of these (70%, 7/10) used the template-based design method, two (20%, 2/10) used the de novo design method, and one study (10%, 1/10) used the conjugation method. In addition, five studies developed their own peptides with antimicrobial and mineralising properties. These studies used the conjugation method. Our assessment for the risk of bias in the 62 reviewed studies showed that 44 publications (71%, 44/62) had a medium risk and that 3 publications had a low risk (5%, 3/62). The two most common methods for developing peptides for use in caries management that were used in these studies were the template-based design method and the conjugation method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据