ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2012
Reaction of rat subcutaneous connective tissue to resin composites polymerized with different light curing units and different lightening methods.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biocompatibility of different resin composites after polymerization with two light curing units: an immunohistochemical study.European oral research · 2024Article
- Histocompatibility of Dental Restorative Composite Resin Photopolymerized with a Novel Multifunctional Comonomer: A Histopathological Analysis in Rats.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2021Article
- Relative biocompatibility of micro-hybrid and nano-hybrid light-activated composite resins.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to determine and compare the reaction of rat subcutaneous connective tissue to resin composites polymerized with different lights curing and lightening methods. In this in vivo study, 20 mature Wister Albino rats were used. The composite discs, 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm thick, were cured by QTH or LED light curing units with 4 different lightning methods (full power QTH, full power LED, pulse LED, and ramp LED). Five resin composite discs were implanted in each rat, so that 4 of 5 discs for implantation of cured composite discs differently and central one as control without implantation. After sacrificing at 7, 14, 30, and 60 days the inflammatory grade, fibrosis, and necrosis were determined. Freedman and Cochran tests were used to analyze the data using SPSS software ver. 15. The results of the study showed significant differences in inflammation grade and fibrosis among control group and 4 experimental groups at day 14 (P < 0.05). In necrosis, there was no significant difference among 4 groups in different times (P > 0.05). In conclusion, neither the type of light curing units (LED or QTH) nor the lightening methods can affect the grade of inflammatory reaction.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.