ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2023
Comparison of the Cytotoxic Effect of 3D-Printed Resins, Resin-based CAD/CAM blocks and Composite Resin.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biocompatibility of printed, milled, and conventionally fabricated indirect resin-based restorative materials: an in vitro comparative study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Additive manufacturing for Dentistry: A comprehensive review of techniques and applications.Progress in materials science · 2026Article
- Biocompatibility of CAD/CAM Milled Dental Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review from In Vitro Studies.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study investigated the cytotoxic effects of 3D-printed permanent resins, resin-based CAD/CAM blocks and composite resin on human gingival fibroblast (HGF-1) and mouse fibroblast (L929) cell line. Material and Methods: 3D-printed permanent resins (Crowntec and Permanent Crown), resin-based CAD/CAM blocks (Vita Enamic and Brilliant Crios) and composite resin (Clearfill Majesty Posterior) were used in the study. Samples were prepared from the planned materials and kept in DMEM according to ISO 10993-12:2021 standard (3 cm2/ml). The cytotoxic effect of the materials on HGF-1 and L929 cells was examined by MTT test at the end of 24 and 72 h. Two-way analysis of variance test (ANOVA) was used to analyze cell viability data. Results: 3D-printed permanent resins, resin-based CAD/CAM blocks and composite resin extracts showed similar cell viability on HGF-1 and L929 cells at the end of 24 h ( Conclusions: 3D-printed permanent restoration resins showed similar cell viability on HGF-1 and L929 cells to resin-based CAD/CAM blocks and composite resin.
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.