Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36053352›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2022

Comparative cytocompatibility of the new calcium silicate-based cement NeoPutty versus NeoMTA Plus and MTA on human dental pulp cells: an in vitro study.

Ana Lozano-Guillén, Sergio López-García, Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Lozano, José Luis Sanz, Adrián Lozano, Carmen Llena, Leopoldo Forner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ana Lozano-GuillénDepartment of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Universitat de València, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Sergio López-GarcíaHematopoietic Transplant and Cellular Therapy Unit, Instituto Murciano de Investigación Biosanitaria Virgen de La Arrixaca, IMIB-Arrixaca, University of Murcia, 30120, Murcia, Spain.
Francisco Javier Rodríguez-LozanoHematopoietic Transplant and Cellular Therapy Unit, Instituto Murciano de Investigación Biosanitaria Virgen de La Arrixaca, IMIB-Arrixaca, University of Murcia, 30120, Murcia, Spain.
José Luis SanzDepartment of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Universitat de València, 46010, Valencia, Spain. Jose.L.Sanz@uv.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5438-8085
Adrián LozanoDepartment of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Universitat de València, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Carmen LlenaDepartment of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Universitat de València, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Leopoldo FornerDepartment of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Universitat de València, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Universitat de València · ESInstituto Murciano de Investigación Biosanitaria · ES

Funding

Instituto de Salud Carlos III RD16/0011/0001Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades FPU19/03115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the present in vitro study is to determine the cytocompatibility of the recently introduced NeoPutty in contact with human dental pulp cells compared with its precursor NeoMTA Plus and the classic gold standard MTA Angelus. MATERIALS AND

methodsSample disks were obtained for each of the tested materials (5 mm diameter; 2 mm thickness; n = 30), along with 1:1, 1:2, and 1:4 material eluents. HDPCs were extracted and cultured with the tested materials (test groups) or in unconditioned medium (control group), and the following biocompatibility assays were performed: MTT assay, scratch wound assay, cell cytoskeleton staining assays, and cell attachment assessment via SEM. Additionally, material ion release and surface element composition were evaluated via ICP-MS and SEM-EDX, respectively. Each experimental condition was carried out three times and assessed in three independent experiments. Statistical significance was established at p < 0.05.

results1:2 dilutions of all the tested materials exhibited a comparable cell viability to that of the control group at 48 and 72 h of culture (p < 0.05). The same was observed for 1:4 dilutions of the tested materials at 24, 48, and 72 h of culture (p > 0.05). All the tested materials exhibited adequate cytocompatibility in the remaining biocompatibility assays. MTA exhibited a significantly higher calcium ion release compared to NeoPutty and NeoMTA Plus (p < 0.05).

conclusionThe results from the present work elucidate the adequate cytocompatibility of NeoPutty, NeoMTA Plus, and MTA Angelus towards human dental pulp cells. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of the present in vitro study, our results may act as preliminary evidence for its use in vital pulp therapy as a pulp capper. However, results need to be interpreted with caution until further clinical supporting evidence is reported.

Indexed as

CalciumDental PulpAluminum CompoundsBismuthCalcium CompoundsDental CementsDrug CombinationsGlass Ionomer CementsHumansMaterials TestingOxidesSilicate CementSilicatesAluminum CompoundsBismuthCalciumCalcium Compoundscalcium silicateDental CementsDrug CombinationsGlass Ionomer CementsMTA-AngelusOxidesSilicate CementSilicatesBiocompatibilityCalcium silicate cementsCytocompatibilityIn vitroVital pulp therapy

Identifiers

PMID36053352
PMCPMC9708762
OpenAlexW4294281478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.