ArticleJournal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry2020
Comparison of osteopromoting ability of human tooth powder with the demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft, a bovine xenograft, and a synthetic graft: An in vitro study.
Article in Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of autogenous tooth bone graft's impact on cellular behaviour and mineralized tissue formation: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Research progress in periodontally accelerated osteogenic orthodontics.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2024Review
- Autologous Tooth Graft: Innovative Biomaterial for Bone Regeneration. Tooth TransformerJournal of functional biomaterials · 2023Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The present study aimed to evaluate the osteopromoting ability of human tooth powder and compare it to a bovine xenograft, a synthetic material, and the DFDBA allograft. Methods: In this in vitro study, 30 teeth without caries, inflammation, and infection, which had been extracted for orthodontic reasons, were collected. The crowns were removed, pulpectomy was carried out, and the samples were ground to a powder with particles <500 µm. Osteoblast-like cells of MG-63 were cultured with the tooth powder, Cerabone, DFDBA, and Osteon II. Cell proliferation was assessed by the MTT assay at 24- and 72-hour intervals. The alizarin red test was carried out after three and five days. The alkaline phosphatase level was measured after 24, 48, and 72 hours to assess the osteoblastic activity. The results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA. Results: According to the MTT assay, all the materials exhibited a higher proliferation rate than the control group in 24 hours. In 72 hours, DFDBA had the lowest cell proliferation rate at concentrations of 40 and 80 mg/mL. DFDBA and the positive control group were able to create calcified nodules by the alizarin red test. At the 48- and 72-hour intervals, DFDBA had the lowest alkaline phosphatase activity at a concentration of 40 mg/mL. At the 72-hour interval, bovine xenograft had the highest alkaline phosphatase level, followed by the synthetic material and tooth powder. Conclusion: The tooth powder was able to increase cell proliferation in comparison with the bovine xenograft, the synthetic graft, and the DFDBA. However, its osteopromoting ability was less than that of the osteogenic materials.
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.