ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2018
Comparison of Six Different Silicones In Vitro for Application as Glaucoma Drainage Device.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary experimental study on a novel device using biomaterial for shunting fibrotic bleb following Ahmed glaucoma valve surgery in dogs.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Isoquinolinamine FX-9 Exhibits Anti-Mitotic Activity in Human and Canine Prostate Carcinoma Cell Lines.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- The Study of a New Modified Bicanalicular Intubation for the Repairment of Traumatic Canalicular Laceration.Journal of ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Comparison of two prototypes of a magnetically adjustable glaucoma implant in rabbits.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Silicones are widely used in medical applications. In ophthalmology, glaucoma drainage devices are utilized if conservative therapies are not applicable or have failed. Long-term success of these devices is limited by failure to control intraocular pressure due to fibrous encapsulation. Therefore, different medical approved silicones were tested in vitro for cell adhesion, cell proliferation and viability of human Sclera (hSF) and human Tenon fibroblasts (hTF). The silicones were analysed also depending on the sample preparation according to the manufacturer's instructions. The surface quality was characterized with environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) and water contact angle measurements. All silicones showed homogeneous smooth and hydrophobic surfaces. Cell adhesion was significantly reduced on all silicones compared to the negative control. Proliferation index and cell viability were not influenced much. For development of a new glaucoma drainage device, the silicones Silbione LSR 4330 and Silbione LSR 4350, in this study, with low cell counts for hTF and low proliferation indices for hSF, and silicone Silastic MDX4-4210, with low cell counts for hSF and low proliferation indices for hTF, have shown the best results in vitro. Due to the high cell adhesion shown on Silicone LSR 40, 40,026, this material is unsuitable.
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.