ArticleIranian endodontic journal2015
Cytotoxicity of two resin-based sealers and a fluoride varnish on human gingival fibroblasts.
Article in Iranian endodontic journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of an Experimental Resin-based Sealer (Resil) and AH-26 on Postoperative Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Iranian endodontic journal · 2024Trial
- Comparative in vitro cytotoxicity of four commercially available 5% sodium fluoride varnishes in HGF-1 gingival fibroblasts.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Cytotoxicity and subcutaneous tissue response of beta RCS in comparison with ADSeal and AH plus endodontic sealers: in vitro/in vivo study.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Epoxy Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers before and after Setting Procedures.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Biocompatibility of Root Canal Sealers: A Systematic Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Studies.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Physical Properties, Cytocompatibility and Sealability of HealApex (a Novel Premixed Biosealer).Iranian endodontic journal · 2018Article
- Article
- Physical Properties and Chemical Characterization of Two Experimental Epoxy Resin Root Canal Sealers.Iranian endodontic journal · 2017Article
- Cytotoxicity of Various Endodontic Materials on Stem Cells of Human Apical Papilla.Iranian endodontic journal · 2016Article
- Antibacterial Activity of MTA Fillapex and AH 26 Root Canal Sealers at Different Time Intervals.Iranian endodontic journal · 2016Article
- Cytotoxicity of a New Nano Zinc-Oxide Eugenol Sealer on Murine Fibroblasts.Iranian endodontic journal · 2015Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effects of Three Resin-Based Sealers by 3,(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-Diphenyltetrazolium Bromide Assay and Comet Assay - An In Vitro Study.Contemporary clinical dentistryArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAssessment of cellular cytotoxicity is a regular method for evaluating the biocompatibility of novel materials. In a recent study, 5% fluoride varnish (Duraflur) has shown reasonable sealing ability and coverage of root canal walls when used as a sealer. The aim of the present study was to compare the cytotoxicity of Duraflur varnish with two popular commonly used root canal sealers (AH-Plus and AH-26) on human gingival fibroblasts (HGF). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The HGFs were incubated with different concentrations (1/2, 1/4, and 1/8) of AH-plus, AH-26, and Duraflur varnish for 24 h. The percentage of cell viability was assessed with methyl-thiazol-tetrazolium (MTT) assay. The data was analyzed using the one-way ANOVA followed by Student-Newman-Keuls test. The level of significance was set at 0.001.
resultsMTT assay showed that higher concentrations of the tested materials resulted in lower viability of HGFs. AH-Plus showed significantly greater cell viability compared to AH-26 at all dilutions (P<0.001); however, no significant difference was found between Duraflur and AH-Plus in terms of cell viability at 1/8 dilution (P>0.001). Duraflur showed significantly higher cell viability compared to AH-26 except at 1/2 dilution (P<0.001).
conclusionAlthough Duraflur varnish had better biocompatibility compared to AH-26, it should still be evaluated with further biocompatibility tests such as intraosseous and subcutaneous implantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25834590PMC4372780W1772354899What 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.