ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry
Comparative Evaluation of Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effects of Three Resin-Based Sealers by 3,(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-Diphenyltetrazolium Bromide Assay and Comet Assay - An In Vitro Study.
Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cytotoxicity of Root Canal Sealers and Potential Clinical Implications: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Genotoxicity and Cytotoxicity of Bioceramic Endodontic Sealers in HepG2 and V79 Cell Lines: An In Vitro Study Using the Comet and Micronucleus Assays.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of bioceramic root canal sealers compared to conventional resin-based sealer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Genotoxicity induced by endodontic sealers: A systematic review.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Review
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
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe complete sealing of the pulpal space contributes to the better healing potential after an root canal treatment, and root canal sealers are an integral part of this treatment which comes in contact with the periodontal tissue. Biocompatibility of an endodontic sealer plays an important role in the root canal treatment procedure. Hence, the aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity effect of three resin-based sealers on human periodontal fibroblast cells. SETTINGS AND
designThis in vitro study was conducted in Dr. Prabhakar Kore's Basic Science and Research Center and K. L. E V. K. Institute of Dental Sciences, Belagavi. MATERIALS AND
methodsHuman periodontal fibroblasts were incubated with 15 specimens of Group 1 - AH Plus Group 2 - MTA Fillapex, and Group 3 - GuttaFlow 2, respectively. Cytotoxicity was assessed by 3,(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay and genotoxicity was assessed by Comet assay at time intervals at 24 h and 48 h. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-test.
resultsAH Plus and GuttaFlow 2 did not show any cytotoxicity or genotoxicity. MTA Fillapex was slightly cytotoxic throughout the time interval, and it also showed low genotoxicity throughout the time periods for which it was tested.
conclusionAH Plus and GuttaFlow 2 did not show any cytotoxic and genotoxic effect; however, MTA Fillapex showed cytotoxic and genotoxic effect throughout the time interval.
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.