ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2016
Effect of degree of conversion on in vivo biocompatibility of flowable resin used for bioprotection of mini-implants.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of Tissue Repair of a New Cement Based on Calcium and Strontium Aluminates: A Triple-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial in an Animal Model.European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Effect of Yellow Propolis on Biocompatibility of Cements: Morphological and Immunohistochemistry Analysis.European journal of dentistry · 2022Article
- In vivo Hemostatic Activity of Jatropha mollissima: A Triple-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial in an Animal Model.European journal of dentistry · 2021Article
- Antimicrobial, mechanical and biocompatibility analysis of chlorhexidine digluconate-modified cements.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test the hypothesis that there is no difference between the biocompatibility and degree of monomer conversion of flowable resins used as bioprotective materials of orthodontic mini-implants. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-eight male Wistar rats were divided into four groups (n = 12). Group Control (polyethylene), Group Wave, Group Top Comfort, and Group Filtek. The animals were sacrificed after time intervals of 7, 15, and 30 days and tissues were analyzed under optical microscopy for inflammatory infiltrate, edema, necrosis, granulation tissue, multinucleated giant cells, and collagen formation. The degree of conversion was evaluated by the Fourier method. Biocompatibility and degree of conversion were evaluated by the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests, and analysis of variance and the Tukey test, respectively (P < .05).
resultsAn intense inflammatory infiltrate was observed on the seventh day, with Groups Top Comfort and Filtek differing statistically from Group Control (P = .016). Edema, necrosis, granulation tissue, and giant cells showed greater expressiveness at 7 days, without statistical difference between them (P > .05). For the presence of collagen fibers, Group Top Comfort was shown to differ statistically from Group Control (P = .037) at 15 days and from Groups Filtek and Control (P = .008) at 30 days. Monomer conversion ranged from 62.3% in Group Top Comfort at 7 days to 79.1% in Group Filtek at 30 days.
conclusionsThe hypothesis was rejected. The resin Top Comfort demonstrated lower tissue repair capacity with a lower number of collagen fibers compared with Filtek and Wave resins. The resin Top Comfort showed the lowest conversion values during the experiment.
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.