ArticleDentistry journal2022
Two Gingival Cell Lines Response to Different Dental Implant Abutment Materials: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of surface roughness and cell viability of milled and printed polyetheretherketone healing abutments: a comparative study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Effect of Alumina Airborne-Particle Abrasion Followed by Plasma Treatment on Bond Strength of Dental PEEK to MMA-Based Luting Systems.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Anodization and Its Role in Peri-Implant Tissue Adhesion: A Novel 3D Bioprinting Approach.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- In Vitro Evaluation of the Antibacterial Properties and Cellular Response of Liquid-Leukocyte Platelet-Rich Fibrin Products on Barrier Membranes: A Pilot Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- A Preliminary Stability Assessment of Three State-of-the-Art CAD/CAM Materials Under Human Gingival Cell Culture.Polymers · 2025Article
- Beyond antibiotics: advances in photothermal strategies for oral infections.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Viability and Adhesion of Human Gingival Fibroblast and the Adhesion of Oral Microflora on Thermally Aged Zirconia and BioHPP Abutment Surfaces: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Biomaterials science and surface engineering strategies for dental peri-implantitis management.Military Medical Research · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the response of human gingival fibroblasts (HGFB) and human gingival keratinocytes (HGKC) towards different dental implant abutment materials. Methods: Five materials were investigated: (1) titanium (Ti), (2) titanium nitride (TiN), (3) cobalt-chromium (CoCr), (4) zirconia (ZrO2), and (5) modified polyether ether ketone (m-PEEK). Both cell lines were cultured, expanded, and seeded in accordance with the protocol of their supplier. Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity were evaluated at days 1, 3, 5, and 10 using colourimetric viability and cytotoxicity assays. Data were analysed via two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey’s post hoc test (p < 0.05 for all tests). Results: There was a statistically significant difference in cell proliferation of HGKC and HGFB cells in contact with different abutment materials at different time points, with no significant interaction between different materials. There was a significant effect on cell proliferation and cytotoxicity with different exposure times (p < 0.0001) for each material. Cell proliferation rates were comparable for both cell lines at the beginning of the study, however, HGFB showed higher proliferation rates for all materials at day 10 with better proliferation activities with ZrO and m-PEEK (40.27%) and (48.38%) respectively. HGKC showed significant interactions (p < 0.0001) in cytotoxicity between different materials. Conclusion: The present in vitro assessment investigated the biocompatibility of different abutment materials with soft tissue cells (HGFB and HGKC). The findings suggest that m-PEEK and TiN are biologically compatible materials with human cells that represent the soft tissue and can be considered as alternative implant abutment materials to Ti and ZrO2, especially when the aesthetic is of concern.
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.