ArticleBMC oral health2020
Cytocompatibility of 3D printed dental materials for temporary restorations on fibroblasts.
Article in BMC oral health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- In Vitro Cytotoxicity of Three Dimethacrylate-Based Photopolymer Resins for 3D-Printed Dental Restorations: A Qualitative Morphological Screening on Human Fibroblasts.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Impact of Functionalized Graphene Nanoplatelet Incorporation on the Properties of 3D-Printed Resin-Based Dental Composites.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Monomer release, cytotoxicity, and surface roughness of temporary fixed prosthetic materials produced by digital and conventional methods.Odontology · 2025Article
- Review
- Influence of 3D printing system, postpolymerization and aging protocols on resin flexural strength and dimensional stability for printing occlusal splints, models and temporary restorations.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- The state of additive manufacturing in dental research - A systematic scoping review of 2012-2022.Heliyon · 2023Article
- 3D Printing of CNT- and YSZ-Added Dental Resin-Based Composites by Digital Light Processing and Their Mechanical Properties.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Mechanical Properties and Biocompatibility of 3D Printing Acrylic Material with Bioactive Components.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Article
- Evaluation of biofilm formation on acrylic resins used to fabricate dental temporary restorations with the use of 3D printing technology.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- The Biological Effects of 3D Resins Used in Orthodontics: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Biochemical Interaction between Materials Used for Interim Prosthetic Restorations and Saliva.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Effects of Postcuring Temperature on the Mechanical Properties and Biocompatibility of Three-Dimensional Printed Dental Resin Material.Polymers · 2021Article
- Dimensional Accuracy Evaluation of Temporary Dental Restorations with Different 3D Printing Systems.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThree-dimensional (3D) printing is widely used in the fabrication of dental prostheses; however, the influence of dental materials used for 3D printing on temporary restoration of fibroblasts in tissues is unclear. Thus, the influence of different dental materials on fibroblasts were investigated.
methodsDigital light processing (DLP) type 3D printing was used. Specimens in the control group were fabricated by mixing liquid and powder self-curing resin restoration materials. The temporary resin materials used were Model, Castable, Clear-SG, Tray, and Temporary, and the self-curing resin materials used were Lang dental, Alike, Milky blue, TOKVSO CUREFAST, and UniFast III. Fibroblast cells were cultured on each specimen and subsequently post-treated for analysis. Morphology of the adhered cells were observed using a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) and a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
resultsCLSM and SEM cell imaging revealed that the 3D printed material group presented better cell adhesion with well-distributed filopodia compared to that in the conventional resin material group. Cell proliferation was significantly higher in the 3D printing materials.
conclusionSuperior cytocompatibility of the specimens fabricated through 3D printing and polishing process was demonstrated with the proof of better cell adhesion and higher cell proliferation.
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.