ReviewCureus2023
A Look Into the Cytotoxicity of Composite Fillings: Friend or Foe?
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Considerations about Cytotoxicity of Resin-Based Composite Dental Materials: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Biocompatibility of Pit and Fissure Sealants: Scoping Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Evidence.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Cytotoxicity of Self-Etch Versus Etch-and-Rinse Dentin Adhesives After 48 h: An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Resin-Based Dental Composites Modified with Quaternary Ammonium Salts.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial Sol-Gel Glassy Surfaces for Modification of Dental Implant Abutments to Reduce Microbial Adhesion.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Polyhydroxybutyrate as a Novel Biopolymer for Dental Restorative Materials: Biological and Morphological Analysis.Polymers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dental resin composites are widely used restorative materials in dentistry for the treatment of carious and non-carious lesions as well as pit and fissure sealants, cavity liners, and endodontic sealers. They consist of two parts: an organic resin matrix and an inorganic/organic filler. The organic resin matrix phase is made up of multifunctional monomers and light-sensitive initiators, while the inorganic/organic filler phase is made up of micro/nano-sized fillers that primarily serve as reinforcement. Despite being a very promising dental material, its monomeric component has some drawbacks. It is well known for leaching out during incomplete polymerization, which can result in cytotoxicity. Bis-GMA (bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate) is the most cytotoxic of all monomeric components that exhibit synthetic estrogenic effects. The purpose of this article is to assess the cytotoxic effects of dental composite, understand the possible mechanism behind them, and explore ways to screen for and reduce this harmful effect, as well as shed light on its future prospects.
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.