Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32486393›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2020

The Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Three Dental Universal Adhesives-An In Vitro Study.

Adam Wawrzynkiewicz, Wioletta Rozpedek-Kaminska, Grzegorz Galita, Monika Lukomska-Szymanska, Barbara Lapinska, Jerzy Sokolowski, Ireneusz Majsterek

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05029479 (Clinical Performance of a Moisture Resistant, M-TEG-P Phosphate Monomer-based Universal Adhesive in Geriatric Patients With Non-carious Cervical Lesions), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05029479 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Clinical Performance of a Moisture Resistant, M-TEG-P Phosphate Monomer-based Universal Adhesive in Geriatric Patients With Non-carious Cervical Lesions (NCLLs):A Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2021 to 2022Enrolled28ConditionsNon-carious Cervical Lesions, Geriatric PatientsArmsBonding in NCCLs
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

7 authors.

Adam WawrzynkiewiczDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland.
Wioletta Rozpedek-KaminskaDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland.
Grzegorz GalitaDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland.
Monika Lukomska-SzymanskaDepartment of General Dentistry, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6110-4298
Barbara LapinskaDepartment of General Dentistry, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-2348-8515
Jerzy SokolowskiDepartment of General Dentistry, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland.
Ireneusz MajsterekDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Medical University of Lodz, 90-419 Lodz, Poland.

Funding

Uniwersytet Medyczny w Lodzi 503/5-108-05/503-51-005-18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dental universal adhesives are considered an useful tool in modern dentistry as they can be used in different etching techniques, allow for simplified protocol and provide sufficient bond strength. However, there is still no consensus as to their toxicity towards pulp. Thus, the present study aimed to evaluate the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of three universal adhesives: OptiBond Universal, Prime&Bond Universal and Adhese in an in vitro experimental model, monocyte/macrophage cell line SC (ATCC CRL-9855). The cytotoxicity was measured by means of XTT assay, whereas the genotoxicity (comet assay) was evaluated based on the percentage of DNA present in the comet tail. Furthermore, the ability of the adhesives to induce apoptosis was analyzed using flow cytometry (FC) with the FITC annexin V/propidium iodide (PI) double staining. The analysis of the cell cycle progression was performed with FC using PI staining. OptiBond Universal presented significant, while Prime&Bond Universal and Adhese Universal had minimal cytotoxicity and genotoxicity towards human SC cells. Moreover, only OptiBond Universal increased the level of apoptosis in SC cell line. None of the adhesives showed significant cell cycle arrest, as revealed by FC analysis. Due to substantial differences in toxicity in in vitro studies of dental adhesives, there is a great need for further research in order to establish more reliable test protocols allowing for standardized methodology.

Indexed as

Acrylic ResinsApoptosisBisphenol A-Glycidyl MethacrylateCell CycleCell LineColorimetryComet AssayCytotoxinsDental BondingDental CementsDentinDNA DamageHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMacrophagesMaterials TestingAcrylic ResinsAdheSE cementBisphenol A-Glycidyl MethacrylateCytotoxinsDental CementsMutagensOptibondPolymethacrylic AcidsPrime & BondResin Cementscytotoxicitydental materialsdental universal adhesivesflow cytometrygenotoxicity

Identifiers

PMID32486393
PMCPMC7312029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.