ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Biological Response Induced in Primary Human Gingival Fibroblasts upon Exposure to Various Types of Injectable Astringent Retraction Agents.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of bioactive restorative materials on cell viability using direct and extract methods.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
- Development of Oral Microemulsion Spray Containing Pentacyclic Triterpenes-RichPharmaceutics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional chemo-mechanical retraction/displacement materials can impact the gingival margin tissues. This study was undertaken to analyze biological responses induced in human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) upon application of injectable astringent-based agents used in the cordless retraction technique. HGFs were exposed to hemostatic agents (five gels, three pastes, and one foam) based on aluminium chloride, aluminium sulphate and ferric sulphate. Changes in cell viability and proliferation were evaluated using an MTT assay and a BrdU assay. The cytoskeleton structure organization (zyxin and F-actin) was visualized by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Oxidative stress was determined using the Griess Reagent System. The RNA expression levels of antioxidant enzymes were quantified by real-time RT-PCR. The statistical significance was evaluated using Student's t-test and one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD test. The evaluated agents did not downregulate fibroblast viability or proliferation. No significant cytoskeleton reorganization was observed. Only one agent (Expasyl) induced oxidative stress, demonstrated by the increased level of nitrites. Incubation with the studied agents significantly increased the RNA expression of some antioxidant enzymes (SOD1, SOD3, GPX1). However, no significant influence on the expression of SOD2 and HMOX1 was detected. The injectable forms of chemical retraction agents revealed biocompatibility with HGFs, suggesting their potential clinical usefulness in gingival margin retraction.
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.