ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry
The Biological Evaluation of Conventional and Nano-Hydroxyapatite-Silica Glass Ionomer Cement on Dental Pulp Stem Cells: A Comparative Study.
Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Osteogenic Potential of a Three-Phase Strontium- and Silicon-Doped Tricalcium Silicate Cement on Dental Pulp Stem Cells: An In Vitro Study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Synthesis and Application of Sol-Gel-Derived Nano-Silica in Glass Ionomer Cement for Dental Cementation.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Mutagenicity and DNA damage assessment of locally produced nano-hydroxyapatite-silica-glass ionomer cement on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts using Ames and Comet assays.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Ti(C,N) and WC-Based Cermets: A Review of Synthesis, Properties and Applications in Additive Manufacturing.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Cytotoxic Effect of Addition of Different Concentrations of Nanohydroxyapatite to Resin Modified and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cements on L929 Murine Fibroblasts.Frontiers in dentistry · 2021Article
- Early Odontogenic Differentiation of Dental Pulp Stem Cells Treated with Nanohydroxyapatite-Silica-Glass Ionomer Cement.Polymers · 2020Article
- Evaluation of pulpal response at varying remaining dentin thickness in teeth restored with resin bulk fill composite, conventional glass ionomer cement and silver amalgam: Histomorphometric analysis.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite their lower strength, glass ionomer cements (GICs) are widely used as restorative materials because of their anti-cariogenic properties, direct adhesion to tooth structure and good biocompatibility. Recently, the addition of nano-hydroxyapatite (nano-HA)-silica to conventional GIC (cGIC) has been shown to improve the strength of cGIC. However, the biocompatibility and cell attachment properties of this material are unknown.
aimsThis study aims to evaluate and compare the cytotoxicity and cell attachment properties of cGIC and nano-HA-silica-GIC on dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Material extracts of nano-HA-silica-GIC and cGIC were prepared into seven serial dilutions and applied to 96 well plates seeded with DPSCs. After 72 h, the cell viability was determined using MTT assay. The DPSCs cell attachment properties were examined under scanning electron microscope (SEM) after 24 and 72 h. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyse the data for MTT assay (
resultsNano-HA-silica-GIC and cGIC was shown to be slight to non-cytotoxic at all concentrations, except 200 mg/ml. Moderate cytotoxicity has been observed at 200 mg/ml concentration where nano-HA-silica-GIC and cGIC revealed cell viability values of 44.38 and 42.15%, respectively. Nano-HA-silica-GIC demonstrated better cell viability values than cGIC at all concentrations except for 6.25 and 12.5 mg/ml. Nevertheless, the results were not statistically significant (
conclusionsNano-HA-silica-GIC exhibited good biocompatibility which is comparable to cGIC and favoured the attachment of DPSCs.
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.