Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32970196›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2021

Genotoxic and cytotoxic potential of methacrylate-based orthodontic adhesives.

Andreas Taubmann, Ines Willershausen, Christian Walter, Sarah Al-Maawi, Bernd Kaina, Lina Gölz

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Biological Consequences and Assessment Methods Analysis of Fixed Orthodontic Appliances on Oral Epithelial Cells: A Systematic Review.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andreas Taubmann *Department of Operative Dentistry, Johannes Gutenberg University Hospital Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Ines Willershausen *Department of Orthodontics and Orofacial Orthopedics, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. ineswill@me.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3563-687X
Christian WalterMEDI+ Mainz, Private Practice, Mainz, Germany.
Sarah Al-MaawiFrankfurt Orofacial Regenerative Medicine (FORM) Lab, Department for Oral, Cranio-Maxillofacial and Facial Plastic Surgery, Medical Center of the Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Bernd KainaInstitute of Toxicology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Lina GölzDepartment of Orthodontics and Orofacial Orthopedics, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe biocompatibility of methacrylate-based adhesives is a topic that is intensively discussed in dentistry. Since only limited evidence concerning the cyto- and genotoxicity of orthodontic adhesives is available, the aim of this study was to measure the genotoxic potential of seven orthodontic methacrylate-based adhesives. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe XTT assay was utilized to determine the cytotoxicity of Assure Plus, Assure Bonding Resin, ExciTE F, OptiBond Solo Plus, Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, Transbond MIP, and Transbond XT after an incubation period of 24 h on human gingival fibroblasts. We also performed the γH2AX assay to explore the genotoxic potential of the adhesives within cytotoxic dose ranges after an incubation period of 6 h.

resultsThe XTT assay showed a concentration-dependent reduction in cell viability. The decrease in cellular viability was in the same dose range most significant for Assure Plus, rendering it the adhesive material with the highest cytotoxicity. Employing the γH2AX assay, a concentration-dependent increase in H2AX phosphorylation was detected, indicating induction of DNA damage.

conclusionsFor most products, a linear correlation between the material concentration and γH2AX foci was observed. The most severe effect on γH2AX focus induction was found for Transbond MIP, which was the only adhesive in the test group containing the co-initiator diphenyliodonium hexafluorophosphate (DPIHP). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The data indicate that orthodontic adhesives, notably Transbond MIP, bear a genotoxic potential. Since the study was performed with in vitro cultivated cells, a direct translation of the findings to in vivo exposure conditions should be considered with great diligence.

Indexed as

Dental BondingOrthodontic BracketsAdhesivesDental CementsDental Stress AnalysisDNA DamageHumansMaterials TestingMethacrylatesResin CementsShear StrengthAdhesivesDental CementsMethacrylatesResin CementsBiocompatibilityDPIHPMethacrylatesOrthodontic adhesivesγH2AX assay

Identifiers

PMID32970196
PMCPMC8060203
OpenAlexW3088473260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.