ArticlePolymers2021
The Toxicity of Universal Dental Adhesives: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Polymers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Considerations about Cytotoxicity of Resin-Based Composite Dental Materials: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Biocompatibility, inflammatory response, and antimicrobial properties of single-bottle adhesives on gingival fibroblast and human dental pulp stem cells.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the Cytotoxic Effects of Adhesive Systems with Different pH Values on L929 Fibroblast Cells: An In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The potential cytotoxic effect of recent universal adhesives with modified monomeric compositions on human gingival epithelial cells.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
There is no consensus in the literature regarding the potential toxicity of universal dental adhesives (UDA). Being used in close proximity to the pulp, their biocompatibility should be an important factor in dental research. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the biocompatibility of UDA in an in vitro model. The study was performed using a monocyte/macrophage peripheral blood SC cell line (ATCC CRL-9855) on four specific UDA, namely: All-Bond Universal (Bisco); CLEARFIL Universal Bond Quick (Kuraray); G-Premio BOND (GC); Single Bond Universal (3M ESPE). The cytotoxicity of the investigated UDA was measured using the XTT colorimetric assay. The genotoxicity of the analyzed compounds was evaluated using an alkaline version of the comet assay. Furthermore, flow cytometry (FC) apoptosis detection was performed using the FITC Annexin V Apoptosis Detection Kit I. FC cell-cycle arrest assessment was performed using propidium iodide staining. The study observed significant differences in the toxicity of the UDA that were tested, as G-Premio BOND showed significant in vitro toxicity in all of the tests performed, while All-Bond Universal, CLEARFIL Universal Bond Quick and Single Bond Universal did not present any significant toxic effects toward SC cell line. The in vitro toxicity of UDA should be taken into consideration prior to in vivo and clinical studies. The flow cytometry could improve the accuracy of dental materials research and should be incorporated into the standardization criteria.
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.