ArticleBrazilian dental journal
Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of Bio-C Repair, Endosequence BC Root Repair, MTA Angelus and MTA Repair HP.
Article in Brazilian dental journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repair of critical bone defects with two bioceramics in rat calvaria.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- The Impact of Vital Pulp Therapy on Normal Root Development in Immature Teeth: A Case Report.Iranian endodontic journal · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of various biomaterials as pulpotomy agents in molars with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis: A randomized single-blinded single-center control trial.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- Cell Biological and Antibacterial Evaluation of a New Approach to Zirconia Implant Surfaces Modified with MTA.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Effect of pH on the solubility and volumetric change of ready-to-use Bio-C Repair bioceramic material.Brazilian oral research · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim was to evaluate in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of Bio-C Repair (BCR), compared to Endosequence BC Root Repair (ERRM), MTA Angelus (MTA-Ang), and MTA Repair HP (MTA-HP). MC3T3 osteoblastic cells were exposed to extracts of the repairing bioceramic cements. After 1, 3, and 7 days, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity were evaluated by MTT and Micronucleus tests, respectively. Cells not exposed to biomaterials were used as a negative control. Data were compared using ANOVA two-way, followed by the Tukey Test (α=5%). MTA-Ang and MTA-HP showed no difference in relation to control regarding cytotoxicity in any experimental times. BCR and ERRM reduced cell viability after 3 and 7 days (p<0.05); however, the reduction caused by BCR was less than that caused by ERRM. Considering the micronucleus formation, all biomaterials caused an increase after 3 and 7 days (p<0.05), being greater for the BCR and ERRM groups. It can be concluded that BCR is non-cytotoxic in osteoblastic cells, as well as MTA-Ang e MTA Repair HP. BCR and ERRM showed greater genotoxicity than others tested biomaterials.
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.