ArticleCureus2024
Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Various Composite Resin Materials: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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 Pit and Fissure Sealants: Scoping Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Evidence.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Eugenol Nanoparticles in Dental Composites: Literature Review of Antimicrobial, Anti-Inflammatory, and Clinical Applications.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim This study aimed to determine and compare the cytotoxicity of light-cured composite resin (Enlight light cure composite (Ormco, Glendora, California, USA)), light-cured acrylic resin (Orthocryl LC (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany)), and the self-cure acrylic (DPI RR cold cure acrylic (Dental Products of India, Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd., Mumbai, India)) material and to determine which component is best to be used for the purpose of nasal stent fabrication in the nasoalveolar molding (NAM) technique for cleft therapy. Methods Circular discs made from Enlight light cure composite, Orthocryl LC, and self-cure acrylic were submerged for 24 hours in gingival fibroblast media (three discs of each material) and control medium (three discs of each material) that were both contained in plates. After analyzing the optical densities of the plates, the cytotoxicity of the products was assessed by measuring cell viability using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. The compiled data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, V. 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). The normality of the data was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise comparison made with Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test with a significance level (p) of 0.05 were considered. Results The percentage of cell viability was between 80% and 150%. A significant mean difference was noted in the cell viability between the three groups (p=0.009). High mean cell viability was seen in Orthocryl LC. However, there was no significant mean difference between Orthocryl LC and Enlight light cure composite material (p=0.854). Conclusion Both Orthocryl LC and Enlight light cure composite materials are less cytotoxic when compared to the self-cure acrylic resin material and can be used to fabricate the nasal stent component for infants with cleft defects, undergoing NAM procedure.
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.