Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33322183›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Comparative Toxicological In Vitro and In Ovo Screening of Different Orthodontic Implants Currently Used in Dentistry.

Camelia A Szuhanek, Claudia G Watz, Ștefana Avram, Elena-Alina Moacă, Ciprian V Mihali, Adelina Popa, Andrada A Campan, Mirela Nicolov, Cristina A Dehelean

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Development and Characterization of FeMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. In vitro study of the orthodontic mini-implants influence on the growth of human osteoblasts.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    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

9 authors.

Camelia A SzuhanekDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 9 No., Revolutiei Bv., 300041 Timişoara, Romania.
Claudia G WatzDepartament of Pharmaceutical Physics and Biophysics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timişoara, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-2498-4732
Ștefana AvramDepartment of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timişoara, Romania.
Elena-Alina MoacăDepartament of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timişoara, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-2631-7028
Ciprian V MihaliDepartment of Life Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Vasile Goldis Western University of Arad, 86 No., Liviu Rebreanu St., 310414 Arad, Romania.
Adelina PopaDepartment of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 9 No., Revolutiei Bv., 300041 Timişoara, Romania.
Andrada A CampanDepartament of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timişoara, Romania.
Mirela NicolovDepartament of Pharmaceutical Physics and Biophysics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timişoara, Romania.
Cristina A DeheleanDepartament of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timişoara, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selecting the most biocompatible orthodontic implant available on the market may be a major challenge, given the wide array of orthodontic devices currently available on the market. The latest scientific data have suggested that in vitro evaluations using oral cell lines provide reliable data regarding the toxicity of residual particles released by different types of orthodontic devices. In this regard, the in vitro biocompatibility of three different commercially available implants (stainless steel and titanium-based implants) was assessed.

methodsAs an in vitro model, human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) were employed to evaluate the cellular morphology, cell viability, and cytotoxicity by means of 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assays at 24 h and 72 h post-exposure to test implants.

resultsThe results correlate the composition and topography of the implant surface with biological experimental evaluations related to directly affected cells (gingival fibroblasts) and toxicological results on blood vessels (hen's egg test-chorioallantoic membrane (HET-CAM) assay). The stainless steel implant exhibits a relative cytotoxicity against HGF cells, while the other two samples induced no significant alterations of HGF cells.

conclusionAmong the three test orthodontic implants, the stainless steel implant induced slight cytotoxic effects, thus increased vigilance is required in their clinical use, especially in patients with high sensitivity to nickel.

Indexed as

cytotoxicityHET-CAM assayHGForthodontic implantssurface topography

Identifiers

PMID33322183
PMCPMC7763890

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.