ArticleBMC oral health2021
Cellular response of human apical papilla cells to calcium hydroxide and tricalcium silicate-based cements.
Article in BMC oral health, 2021. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Biodentine for Apexification of Immature Teeth of Children: A Scoping Review.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Periapically Extruded Calcium Silicate Cements in Retreated Teeth: A Case Report and Literature Review.Case reports in dentistry · 2025Article
- Effect of copper oxide nanoparticles and light-emitting diode irradiation on the cell viability and osteogenic/odontogenic differentiation of human stem cells from the apical papilla.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Bioceramics in Endodontics: Updates and Future Perspectives.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Effect of diode low level laser and red light emitting diode irradiation on cell proliferation and osteogenic/odontogenic differentiation of stem cells from the apical papilla.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- Bioactivity Potential of Bioceramic-Based Root Canal Sealers: A Scoping Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the biological response of human apical papilla cells to different calcium hydroxide formulations and three tricalcium silicate-based materials.
methodsPrimary cells were obtained from explants of young immature premolars. 20,000 cells adhered for 24 h over discs of Biodentine™, ProRoot®MTA, BioRoot®RCS and calcium hydroxide mixed either with sodium chloride 0.9%w/v or polyethylene glycol and UltraCal® were used to evaluate cell adhesion by scanning electron microscopy and cell viability by MTT assay.
resultsCells adhered to ProRoot®MTA showed an increase of F-actin like protrusions, suggesting bioactivity. Cells adhered to UltraCal® show protrusion such as filopodia. On the contrary, cells adhered to BioRoot®RCS showed no signs of any cellular protrusion. Regarding viability between the materials, we found a higher percentage of viability in cells cultured over discs of Biodentine™ and ProRoot®MTA.
conclusionProRoot®MTA and Biodentine™ exhibit a better cellular response of human apical papilla cells in vitro conditions compared to BioRoot® and calcium hydroxide diluted in sodium chloride.
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.