ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2021
Assessment of Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effect of Fissure Sealants in Buccal Epithelial Cells.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biocompatibility of Pit and Fissure Sealants: Scoping Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Evidence.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Assessment of Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effect of Modern Dental MaterialsActa stomatologica Croatica · 2023Article
- Clinical Prospective Assessment of Genotoxic Effects of Dental Implants in Gingival Epithelial Cells.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe main purpose of this study was to assess the genotoxic and cytotoxic effect of fissure sealants on buccal epithelial cells. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study was conducted on 45 patients (27 girls and 18 boys), seven to 16 years of age (age mean 12.09 ± 2.20). Buccal swabs were collected before (T0), seven (T1), 30 (T2) and 90 days (T3) consequently after fissure sealant placement (Helioseal F®, Equia Fil®, Constic®). Patients or legal guardians filled in the questionnaire regarding the demographic data (age, gender), dietary habits, health status, medication usage, and recent X-ray exposure. DNA damage was analyzed using the micronucleus test.
resultsStatistically significant difference in the number of buccal cells with condensed chromatin was found between T0 (time before fissure sealant placement) and T3 (90 days after fissure sealant placement) period for Helioseal F® (P = 0.025). For the other two analyzed materials, no difference was observed during the tested period. There was no difference between materials in the same sampling time.
conclusionApart from an increase in cells with condensed chromatin 90 days after the placement of Helioseal F®, no other nuclear abnormalities were observed for tested fissure sealants. Although these sealants have now largely been used, it is of high importance that their biocompatibility is checked continuously, especially in
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.