ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2018
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2018. 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.
- Article
- Effect of preheating on the cytotoxicity of bulk-fill composite resins.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate cytotoxic potencies of two light cured composite materials after heating on different temperatures and cured directly and through CAD/CAM overlay. MATERIALS AND
methodsComposite materials (microfilled-hybrid Gradia Direct Posterior and Beautifil II) were heated in a Calset warming unit at three different temperatures (T1:37°C, T2:54°C, T3:68°C). A small amount of heated composite material was placed in a round mold (diameter 6mm; 0.65mm thick), covered with Mylar sheet, pressed and polymerized with Bluephase LED unit. One group of samples were polymerized directly, and the other group through 2mm thick CAD/CAM ceramic-reinforced polymer (CRP) and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic (LDC) overlay for 20 and 40 seconds. The polymerized samples were placed immediately after curing in a lymphocyte cell culture. The viability of peripheral blood lymphocytes was evaluated using a dye exclusion technique by simultaneous staining with ethidium bromide and acridine orange. Quantitative assessments were made by determination of the percentage of viable, apoptotic and necrotic cells. The Pearson chi-square test was used for statistical analysis.
resultsIn case of 20 seconds polymerization, the highest number of viable cells polymerization were recorded when materials were heated at 37°C (T1), while in case of 40 seconds polymerization, the highest number of viable cells were recorded when the materials were heated at 54°C (T2). The samples polymerized through CAD/CAM overlays showed less cytotoxicity than samples polymerized directly.
conclusionApart from composite material composition, the cell viability was also influenced by curing time, temperature of pre-heating and polymerization pattern.
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.