Nina Novozhilova

Dr. Nina Novozhilova

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
9 July 2020 in Nanomaterials
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Ksenia BabinaKsenia Babina
Ksenia Babina
MPMaria Polyakova
Maria Polyakova
ISInna Sokhova
Inna Sokhova
VDVladlena Doroshina
Vladlena Doroshina
MAMarianna Arakelyan
Marianna Arakelyan
NNNina Novozhilova
Nina Novozhilova
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of final surface treatment and dental composite type on the roughness of the composite surface, composite/enamel interface, and composite/cementum interface, as well as on the polishing time. Class V cavities prepared in extracted teeth (n = 126) were restored using one of the three nanohybrid composites with different filler sizes. The specimens were randomly assigned to three different finishing and polishing sequences. The roughness (Ra) of the investigated surfaces was measured using the contact profilometer. The time required to achieve visible gloss was documented. The data were analyzed using ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test (p < 0.05). There was no significant influence of the composite type on the restoration surface roughness (p = 0.088), while the polishing method had a significant impact (p < 0.001). The Ra of the composites ranged between 0.08 µm and 0.29 µm, with the lowest values (0.09 µm ± 0.05 µm) found in the aluminum oxide disc group (p < 0.001). The time to achieve a visible composite gloss was influenced by the polishing method, composite type, and interactions between these factors (p < 0.001). The interface roughness was significantly greater than that of the composite surface (p < 0.001), and depended on the composite type and polishing system employed.

7 March 2022 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Ksenia BabinaKsenia Babina
Ksenia Babina
DSDilara Ilshatovna Salikhova
Dilara Ilshatovna Salikhova
MPMaria Polyakova
Maria Polyakova
OSOxana Svitich
Oxana Svitich
RSRoman Samoylikov
Roman Samoylikov
NNNina Novozhilova
Nina Novozhilova
We aimed to assess the effect of oral probiotics containing the Streptococcus salivarius K12 strain on the salivary level of secretory immunoglobulin A, salivation rate, and oral biofilm. Thirty-one consenting patients meeting the inclusion criteria were recruited in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-arm, parallel-group study and randomly divided into probiotic (n = 15) and placebo (n = 16) groups. Unstimulated salivation rate, concentration of salivary secretory immunoglobulin A, Turesky index, and Papillary-Marginal-Attached index were assessed after 4 weeks of intervention and 2 weeks of washout. Thirty patients completed the entire study protocol. We found no increase in salivary secretory immunoglobulin A levels and salivary flow rates in the probiotic group compared with placebo. Baseline and outcome salivary secretory immunoglobulin A concentrations (mg/L) were 226 ± 130 and 200 ± 113 for the probiotic group and 205 ± 92 and 191 ± 97 for the placebo group, respectively. A significant decrease in plaque accumulation was observed in the probiotic group at 4 and 6 weeks. Within the limitations of the present study, it may be concluded that probiotic intake (Streptococcus salivarius K12) does not affect salivation rates and secretory immunoglobulin A salivary levels but exhibits a positive effect on plaque accumulation. Trial registration NCT05039320. Funding: none.

6 October 2015 in International Endodontic Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
IMI. M. Makeeva
I. M. Makeeva
SBS. F. Byakova
S. F. Byakova
NNNina Novozhilova
Nina Novozhilova
EAE. K. Adzhieva
E. K. Adzhieva
GGG. I. Golubeva
G. I. Golubeva
IKI. V. Kasatkina
I. V. Kasatkina

12 March 2019 in International Endodontic Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SBS. F. Byakova
S. F. Byakova
NNNina Novozhilova
Nina Novozhilova
IMI. M. Makeeva
I. M. Makeeva
VGV. I. Grachev
V. I. Grachev
IKI. V. Kasatkina
I. V. Kasatkina

6 September 2023 in Nutrients
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Ksenia BabinaKsenia Babina
Ksenia Babina
DSDilara Ilshatovna Salikhova
Dilara Ilshatovna Salikhova
VDVladlena Doroshina
Vladlena Doroshina
IMIrina Makeeva
Irina Makeeva
AZAlexandr Zaytsev
Alexandr Zaytsev
NNNina Novozhilova
Nina Novozhilova
We aimed to assess the effect of oral probiotic containing the Streptococcus salivarius M18 strain on gingival inflammation, bleeding on probing, and oral biofilm. Sixty-one consenting participants aged between 18 and 25 with gingivitis were recruited in this double-blind, parallel-group study and randomly divided into the probiotic group (n = 31) and the placebo group (n = 30). Fifty-seven participants completed the entire study protocol, 27 in the probiotic group and 30 in the placebo group. The outcomes were assessed after 4 weeks of intervention and 4 weeks of follow-up. There was a significant decrease in the Gingival Index, with the effect size of 0.58 [95%CI 0.05–1.10], and Turesky modification of the Quigley and Hein Plaque Index, with the effect size of 0.55 [95%CI: 0.02–1.07], in the probiotic group after the intervention. However, after a 4-week follow-up, the only significant treatment outcome was improved gingival condition according to the Gingival Index. The Gingival Bleeding Index also decreased significantly in the probiotic group after the intervention period; after the follow-up, this parameter did not differ significantly in both groups from the baseline values. In the placebo group, there were no significant improvements in the assessed parameters throughout this study. No serious side effects were registered. Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that the use of oral probiotic containing the Streptococcus salivarius M18 strain resulted in a significant improvement in gingival condition and oral hygiene level in young adults with gingivitis. Trial registration NCT05727436. Funding: none.

15 November 2021 in Nanomaterials
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Ksenia BabinaKsenia Babina
Ksenia Babina
MPMaria Polyakova
Maria Polyakova
ISInna Sokhova
Inna Sokhova
VDVladlena Doroshina
Vladlena Doroshina
MAMarianna Arakelyan
Marianna Arakelyan
NNNina Novozhilova
Nina Novozhilova
We aimed to assess the effects of ultrasonic scaling and air-powder polishing on the roughness of enamel, three nanocomposites (Premise, Herculite Ultra, Harmonize), and composite/enamel and composite/cementum interfaces. Class V cavities were restored in 99 extracted third molars with one of the three nanocomposites and treated with ultrasonic scaler or air-powder polishing device (calcium carbonate or sodium bicarbonate powders). The roughness (Ra) of the investigated surfaces was measured with contact profilometer before and after treatment. The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Specimens’ Ra values before instrumentation were near the clinically acceptable 0.2 μm threshold. All techniques increased the roughness of the tested surfaces; however, the enamel was slightly affected. The mean Ra values after prophylaxis for composite, composite/cementum and composite/enamel surfaces were 0.32–0.55, 1.33–1.73, and 1.25–1.36, respectively. The extent of composite surface damage was material dependent. Premise surface was not altered by ultrasonic scaling significantly. Air-powder polishing with both powders produced a greater increase in surface roughness of composite resin and restorations margins than ultrasonic scaling. The Ra values after both types of air polishing for Herculite Ultra and Harmonize were approximately 1.5 and 2 times higher, respectively, than those after ultrasonic scaling (p < 0.05).