ArticleJournal of tissue engineering2014
Biological effects of soft denture reline materials on L929 cells in vitro.
Article in Journal of tissue engineering, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The influence of denture adhesives on the microhardness, color, and roughness of rigid reliners, before and after thermocycling.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2025Article
- Functionalized SPION immobilized on graphene-oxide: Anticancer and antiviral study.Diamond and related materials · 2022Article
- Surface Characterization, Biocompatibility and Antifungal Efficacy of a Denture-Lining Material ContainingMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Mouthwash with Active Oxygen (blue®m) Reduces Postoperative Inflammation and Pain.Case reports in dentistry · 2021Article
- Gypsum-Based Material for Dental Pulp Capping: Effect of Chitosan and BMP-2 on Physical, Mechanical, and Cellular Properties.International journal of biomaterials · 2018Article
- Altered Proteome of Burkholderia pseudomallei Colony Variants Induced by Exposure to Human Lung Epithelial Cells.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Soft denture reline materials have been developed to help patients when their oral mucosa is damaged or affected due to ill-fitting dentures or post-implant surgery. Although reports have indicated that these materials leach monomers and other components that do affect their biocompatibility, there is little information on what cell molecules may be implicated in these material/tissue interactions. The biocompatibility of six soft liners (Ufi Gel P, Sofreliner S, Durabase Soft, Trusoft, Softone and Coe Comfort) was evaluated using a mouse fibroblast cell line, L929. Within 2 h of material disc preparation, each of the materials was exposed by direct contact to L929 cells for periods of 24 and 48 h. The effect of this interaction was assessed by alamarBlue assay (for cell survival). The expression of integrin α5β1 and transforming growth factor β1 was also assessed using plate assays such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Trusoft, Softone and Coe Comfort showed significantly reduced cell survival compared with the other soft lining materials at each incubation period. Furthermore, there were significant differences with these same materials in the expression of both integrin α5β1 and transforming growth factor β1. Soft liner materials may affect cell viability and cellular proteins that have important roles in wound healing and the preservation of cell viability and function in the presence of environmental challenges and stresses.
Indexed as
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.