ArticleHeliyon2022
Biocompatibility and mechanical properties of an experimental E-glass fiber-reinforced composite for dentistry.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. 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.
- Five years of restorative resin-based composite advancements: a narrative review.BMC oral health · 2025Review
- Evaluation of compressive strength, microhardness and solubility of zinc-oxide eugenol cement reinforced with E-glass fibers.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Effect of natural silk fibers and synthetic fiber-reinforced composites on the cytotoxicity of fibroblast cell lines.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2024Article
- Study on New Dental Materials Containing Quinoxaline-Based Photoinitiators in Terms of Exothermicity of the Photopolymerization Process.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the biocompatibility and mechanical properties of experimental Methods: Two ratios of HDDMA/TEGDMA resin were evaluated: exp-1 (70/30 wt.%) and exp-2 (50/50 wt.%) with two Results: Cytoviability of the experimental groups was significantly higher than the control groups (p < 0.05). The exp-1 cytoviability (98.2 ± 1.3%) met the ISO 10993-5 standard requirement for noncytotoxic materials. The adherence of bacteria to the experimental FRCs was visibly less than the controls, while Conclusion: The experimental HDDMA/TEGDMA-based FRCs might be potential alternatives for Clinical significance: The HDDMA/TEGDMA E-glass FRCs might provide biocompatible restorations.
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.