Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29603022›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2019

Cytotoxic effects to mouse and human gingival fibroblasts of a nanohybrid ormocer versus dimethacrylate-based composites.

Andrea Schubert, Christopher Ziegler, Andrea Bernhard, Ralf Bürgers, Nicolai Miosge

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrea SchubertTissue Regeneration and Oral Biology Work Group, Department of Prosthodontics, Georg August University, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany.
Christopher ZieglerTissue Regeneration and Oral Biology Work Group, Department of Prosthodontics, Georg August University, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany.
Andrea BernhardTissue Regeneration and Oral Biology Work Group, Department of Prosthodontics, Georg August University, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany.
Ralf BürgersTissue Regeneration and Oral Biology Work Group, Department of Prosthodontics, Georg August University, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany.
Nicolai MiosgeTissue Regeneration and Oral Biology Work Group, Department of Prosthodontics, Georg August University, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany. nmiosge@gwdg.de.
University of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTooth-colored composites have emerged as a standard restorative material in caries therapy and have largely replaced materials such as silver amalgam or glass ionomer cements. In addition to their superior esthetics and desirable mechanical properties, composites also comprise negative characteristics, such as wear, shrinkage, and an adverse biocompatibility. Modifications of classic resin-based dental composites have been developed to overcome these shortcomings. For example, ormocers are innovative inorganic-organic hybrid polymers that form a siloxane network modified by the incorporation of organic groups. Recently, a new ormocer, Admira Fusion (VOCO), was introduced to composite technology. The absence of cytotoxic matrix monomers leads to the hypothesis that ormocers have improved biocompatibility compared to resin-based dental restorative materials. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe aim of this study was to compare the cytotoxic effects of Admira Fusion to a nanohybrid composite (GrandioSO, VOCO) and a nanofiller composite (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M Espe) on the standard dermal mouse fibroblasts (L929) and human gingival fibroblasts (GF-1) via a Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) assay.

resultsAdmira Fusion was significantly less cytotoxic than GrandioSO and Filtek Supreme XTE to both the standard mouse dermal fibroblasts (L929) and human gingival fibroblasts.

conclusionsCompared to other resin-based dental restorative materials, the ormocer (Admira Fusion) possesses a superior biocompatibility in vitro. Future research studies are needed to confirm our results. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinically, dental practitioners and their patients might benefit from Admira Fusion in terms of reduced adverse biologic reactions compared to resin-based dental restorative materials.

Indexed as

Acrylic ResinsAnimalsCells, CulturedCell SurvivalComposite ResinsDental MaterialsFibroblastsGingivaHumansMaterials TestingMethacrylatesMiceOrganically Modified CeramicsPolyurethanesSiloxanesAcrylic ResinsadmiraComposite Dental ResinComposite ResinsDental MaterialsFiltek SupremeGrandioso FlowMethacrylatesOrganically Modified CeramicsPolyurethanesSiloxanesBiocompatibilityCCK-8CompositeHuman gingival fibroblastsMouse fibroblastsOrmocer

Identifiers

PMID29603022
OpenAlexW2794677731

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.