ArticleEuropean oral research2024
Biocompatibility of different resin composites after polymerization with two light curing units: an immunohistochemical study.
Article in European oral research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of flowable composite resins with different compositions: in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the biocompatibility of two different resin composites after polymerization under two different light sources in three different time periods. Materials and methods: 72 polyethylene tubes polymerized with 2 different resin composites and 2 different light sources (Elipar S10 and Valo ) [Group 1: Kalore Elipar S10 (KE), Group 2: Kalore Valo (KV), Group 3: Essentia Elipar S10 (EE), Group 4: Essentia Valo (EV)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 18 rats. 24 empty polyethylene tubes [Group 5: (Control group)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 6 rats. Then, the rats were sacrificed after 7th, 15th and 30th days in each time intervals (n=8). Biopsy samples were stained with H&E and examined for inflammation, necrosis, macrophage infiltrate, giant cell and fibrous capsule criteria. Immunohistochemical staining was performed to evaluate proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-8). Results: When the composite groups and the control groups were compared; the difference was statistically significant for the criteria of inflammation at 7th and 15th days, there was no statistical difference between the time points in terms of fibrous capsule and necrosis. When the composite groups and control groups were evaluated in terms of proinflammatory cytokines; statistically significant differences were found at 7th, 15th and 30th days. Conclusion: All CRs used in this study showed acceptable biocompatibility in the subcutaneous tissues of rats after polymerization with different light sources.
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.