Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25789229›Full record

ArticleAdvanced pharmaceutical bulletin2015

Investigating the mutagenic effects of three commonly used pulpotomy agents using the ames test.

Mohammad Samiei, Saeed Asgary, Malak Farajzadeh, Nasrin Bargahi, Majid Abdolrahimi, Usef Kananizadeh, Siavoush Dastmalchi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mohammad SamieiFaculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Saeed AsgaryIranian Center for Endodontic Research, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Malak FarajzadehBiotechnology Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Nasrin BargahiBiotechnology Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Majid AbdolrahimiFaculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Usef KananizadehFaculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Siavoush DastmalchiBiotechnology Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran. ; School of Pharmacy, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Tabriz University of Medical Sciences · IRBiotechnology Research Center · IRShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe mutagenic potency of materials used in dentistry is of great concern. The Ames test is a bacterial reverse mutation assay, which is used to determine the mutagenicity potential of chemicals. In this study, the Ames test was used to compare mutagenic effects of three pulpotomy agents, namely, CEM cement, formocresol and ferric sulfate.

methodsTA100 strain of Salmonella typhimurium was used to evaluate mutagenicity of different concentrations of pulpotomy materials in the presence and absence of enzymatic system found in rat liver S9 fraction. Negative controls were 1% dimethyl sulfoxide and water. The positive controls were sodium azide and 2-aminoanthracene. The number of colonies per plate was counted. The material was regarded mutagenic if the number of histidine revertant colonies was twice or more than the spontaneous revertant colonies (Ames mutagenicity ratio).

resultsFerric sulfate was found mutagenic in the concentrations prepared by addition of 50 µL of its 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 times diluted solutions to the culture medium in the absence of S9 fraction (Ames test ratios of 2.8 and 2.2, respectively). Formocresol showed strong toxicity toward TA100 strain of S. typhimurium up to the concentration as low achieved using 1000 times diluted solution of the original preparation, particularly in the presence of S9 fraction. Ames assay failed to detect significant reverse mutations in all the concentrations of CEM cement.

conclusionIn contrast to formocresol and ferric sulfate, CEM cement is a less toxic and non-mutagenic agent.

Indexed as

Ames mutagenicity assayCEM cementFerric sulfateFormocresolPulpotomy

Identifiers

PMID25789229
PMCPMC4352214
OpenAlexW2127303511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.