ArticleBMC oral health2023
Evaluation of the chemical, physical, and biological properties of a newly developed bioceramic cement derived from cockle shells: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bioactivity and dimensional stability of resin-, hybrid-, and silicate-based endodontic sealers: An in vitro comparative study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Modified Formulations of Silicate-Based Cements: Comparative Study of Physicochemical Properties.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Randomised Clinical Trial: Effect of AH Plus and Neosealer Flo on Postoperative Pain and Healing of Periapical Lesions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Calcium carbonate in dentistry: a bibliometric review of emerging applications and trends.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTricalcium silicate is the main component of commercial bioceramic cements that are widely used in endodontic treatment. Calcium carbonate, which is manufactured from limestone, is one of the substrates of tricalcium silicate. To avoid the environmental impact of mining, calcium carbonate can be obtained from biological sources, such as shelled mollusks, one of which is cockle shell. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the chemical, physical, and biological properties of a newly developed bioceramic cement derived from cockle shell (BioCement) with those of a commercial tricalcium silicate cement (Biodentine).
methodsBioCement was prepared from cockle shells and rice husk ash and its chemical composition was determined by X-ray diffraction and X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy. The physical properties were evaluated following the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9917-1;2007 and 6876;2012. The pH was tested after 3 h to 8 weeks. The biological properties were assessed using extraction medium from BioCement and Biodentine on human dental pulp cells (hDPCs) in vitro. The 2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-5[(phenylamino)carbonyl]-2 H-tetrazolium hydroxide assay was used to evaluate cell cytotoxicity following ISO 10993-5;2009. Cell migration was examined using a wound healing assay. Alizarin red staining was performed to detect osteogenic differentiation. The data were tested for a normal distribution. Once confirmed, the physical properties and pH data were analyzed using the independent t-test, and the biological property data were analyzed using one way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons test at a 5% significance level.
resultsThe main components of BioCement and Biodentine were calcium and silicon. BioCement's and Biodentine's setting time and compressive strength were not different. The radiopacity of BioCement and Biodentine was 5.00 and 3.92 mmAl, respectively (p < 0.05). BioCement's solubility was significantly higher than Biodentine. Both materials exhibited alkalinity (pH ranged from 9 to 12) and demonstrated > 90% cell viability with cell proliferation. The highest mineralization was found in the BioCement group at 7 days (p < 0.05).
conclusionsBioCement exhibited acceptable chemical and physical properties and was biocompatible to human dental pulp cells. BioCement promotes pulp cell migration and osteogenic differentiation.
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.