ArticleJournal of endodontics2019
Comparative Evaluation of the Cytotoxic and Angiogenic Effects of Minocycline and Clindamycin: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Journal of endodontics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concentration-dependent effects of modified triple antibiotic paste on human periodontal ligament stem cells and antibacterial efficacy: an in vitro study.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Injectable Hydrogel Biotherapeutics for Regenerative Dental Medicine.Macromolecular bioscience · 2025Review
- Article
- Evaluation of Cytotoxicity of Premixed Triple Antibiotic Paste on Stem Cells of Apical Papilla Using MTT Assay: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF) and Concentrated Growth Factor (CGF) as Carriers for Antibiotics-In Vitro Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Angiogenic Potential of Various Oral Cavity-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Cell-Derived Secretome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Targeted Clindamycin Delivery Systems: Promising Options for Preventing and Treating Bacterial Infections Using Biomaterials.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Impact of Antibiotic-Loaded PMMA Spacers on the Osteogenic Potential of hMSCs.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparative study of the pure AH Plus sealer and its combination with triple antibiotic paste at different concentrations onDental research journal · 2024Article
- Efficacy of propolis and triple antibiotic paste as intra-canal medicaments for revascularisation of immature teeth in dogs: a comparative study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2023Article
- Gelatin methacryloyl hydrogel as an injectable scaffold with multi-therapeutic effects to promote antimicrobial disinfection and angiogenesis for regenerative endodontics.Journal of materials chemistry. B · 2023Article
- The Allogenic Dental Pulp Transplantation from Son/Daughter to Mother/Father: A Follow-Up of Three Clinical Cases.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Photocrosslinkable methacrylated gelatin hydrogel as a cell-friendly injectable delivery system for chlorhexidine in regenerative endodontics.Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2022Article
- Efficacy of Ciprofloxacin, Metronidazole and Minocycline in Ordered Mesoporous Silica againstMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Clindamycin as an Alternative Option in Optimizing Periodontal Therapy.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Hybrid Antimicrobial Hydrogel as Injectable Therapeutics for Oral Infection Ablation.Biomacromolecules · 2020Article
- Antimicrobial Therapeutics in Regenerative Endodontics: A Scoping Review.Journal of endodontics · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to compare the cytocompatibility and angiogenic potential of 2 antibiotics (clindamycin [CLIN] and minocycline [MINO]) at distinct concentrations on dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs).
methodsDPSCs and HUVECs were exposed to cell culture media modified with CLIN or MINO at concentrations ranging from 30 μg/mL-1000 μg/mL. Cell toxicity and proliferation were investigated using the lactate dehydrogenase and tetrazolium reduction assays, respectively. A capillarylike tube formation in vitro assay was conducted to determine the angiogenic potential associated with each antibiotic. Additionally, selected morphometric angiogenesis parameters were determined using dedicated software (WimTube; Onimagin Technologies SCA, Córdoba, Spain). All statistical analyses were performed using 1-way analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test (α= .05).
resultsThe collected data showed that compared with the control (cell culture media, alpha-minimum essential medium Eagle) increasing the antibiotic concentration significantly decreased cell viability and proliferation of both DPSCs and HUVECs. In terms of angiogenic potential, when tested at 30 μg/mL and 50 μg/mL, CLIN significantly amplified tube formation when compared with MINO with angiogenesis parameters (ie, tube length and tube number) similar to the effect promoted by exogenous vascular endothelial growth factor (50 ng/mL).
conclusionsCLIN was less cytotoxic when compared with MINO at higher concentrations. Of note, CLIN did not hinder the proangiogenic activity induced by vascular endothelial growth factor to the same extent as MINO, suggesting that the replacement of MINO by CLIN might translate into positive implications in the overall regenerative outcome.
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.