ArticleJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2021
Comparison of in vitro biocompatibility and antibacterial activity of two calcium silicate-based materials.
Article in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2021. 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.
- Evaluation of a novel bioceramic sealer NeoSEALER Flo on the activation and polarization of macrophage.Odontology · 2026Article
- Effect of Powder-to-Liquid Ratio on pH, Calcium Ion Release, and Solubility Behaviors of Endodontic Bioceramics: An In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- A comprehensive evaluation on the bioactivity, antibacterial efficacy and cell viability of PVA-PVP-chitosan electrospun scaffolds reinforced with calcium/zinc silicate.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Expert consensus on intentional tooth replantation.International journal of oral science · 2025Review
- Expert consensus on pulpotomy in the management of mature permanent teeth with pulpitis.International journal of oral science · 2025Review
- The osteoinductive potential of different root-end filling materials in a rat femur modelScientific reports · 2024Article
- Modern methods and materials used to treat root perforation: effectiveness comparison.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2024Article
- Clinical application of calcium silicate-based bioceramics in endodontics.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Review
- Concentrated growth factor combined with iRoot BP Plus promotes inflamed pulp repair: an in vitro and in vivo study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Properties of Bioceramic Materials in Endodontics.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- The Effect of Ultrasonic Agitation on the Porosity Distribution in Apically Perforated Root Canals Filled with Different Bioceramic Materials and Techniques: A Micro-CT Assessment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Physicochemical Properties, Cytocompatibility, and Biocompatibility of a Bioactive Glass Based Retrograde Filling Material.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Exploring the biological activity and setting dynamics of a novel polydopamine-based root repair material.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study is aimed at comparing and evaluating the biocompatibility and antibacterial activities of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and iRoot BP Plus as novel retro-filling materials. Discs of both materials were prepared and incubated for 72 h to obtain material extracts in medium. Flow cytometry and the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay were used to assess the rate of apoptosis and proliferation of human periodontal ligament stem cells (hPDLSCs) when exposed to eluates of both materials. The expression levels of alkaline phosphatase, collagen type I, osteocalcin, Runt-related transcription factor-2, and Osterix were tested for evaluating the osteogenic differentiation of hPDLSCs. The antibacterial activities of both materials were compared by the direct contact test. The hPDLSCs stimulated by MTA or iRoot BP Plus eluates showed significantly higher cell viability than that of the control group with no eluates. No significant differences were observed among the percentages of necrotic and apoptotic cells stimulated by MTA and iRoot BP Plus eluates and the control group. The expression of all osteogenic differentiation markers of hPDLSCs in both experimental groups were significantly higher than those of the control group, while the increment values in MTA group were significantly higher than those of the iRoot BP Plus group. The antibacterial activity against Enterococcus faecalis showed no significant difference between MTA and iRoot BP Plus. Therefore, both materials may be suitable for retro-filling applications.
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.