ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2016
Biocompatibility of two experimental scaffolds for regenerative endodontics.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pivotal Local Drug Delivery Systems in Endodontics; A Review of Literature.Iranian endodontic journal · 2020Review
- Biological effects of silk fibroin 3D scaffolds on stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHEDs).Odontology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe biocompatibility of two experimental scaffolds for potential use in revascularization or pulp regeneration was evaluated. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne resilient lyophilized collagen scaffold (COLL), releasing metronidazole and clindamycin, was compared to an experimental injectable poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid scaffold (PLGA), releasing clindamycin. Human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs) were seeded at densities of 1.0 × 10(4), 2.5 × 10(4), and 5.0 × 10(4). The cells were investigated by light microscopy (cell morphology), MTT assay (cell proliferation) and a cytokine (IL-8) ELISA test (biocompatibility).
resultsUnder microscope, the morphology of cells coincubated for 7 days with the scaffolds appeared healthy with COLL. Cells in contact with PLGA showed signs of degeneration and apoptosis. MTT assay showed that at 5.0 × 10(4) hDPSCs, COLL demonstrated significantly higher cell proliferation rates than cells in media only (control, p < 0.01) or cells co-incubated with PLGA (p < 0.01). In ELISA test, no significant differences were observed between cells with media only and COLL at 1, 3, and 6 days. Cells incubated with PLGA expressed significantly higher IL-8 than the control at all time points (p < 0.01) and compared to COLL after 1 and 3 days (p < 0.01).
conclusionsThe COLL showed superior biocompatibility and thus may be suitable for endodontic regeneration purposes.
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.