ArticleFrontiers in oral health2024
Comparing cytocompatibility of two fluoride-containing solutions and two resin-based restorative materials-a pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2024. 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.
- Effect of ammonia-free silver fluoride and silver diammine fluoride on immediate microshear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer to demineralised primary tooth dentine.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Article
- The Cariostatic Mechanisms of Fluoride-An Updated Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Cytotoxicity of ammonia- and water-based silver fluoride treatments.European journal of oral sciences · 2026Article
- Internal adaptation and micromorphological analysis of a new self-cure resin composite.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cytocompatibility should always be considered, especially if the surface of treated carious lesions is close to soft tissue or is accidentally exposed to the oral soft tissue by the clinician. Methods: The aim of the present study was to compare the cytocompatibility of two fluoride-containing liquids and two resin-containing restorative materials with buccal mucosa fibroblasts. The fluoride-containing materials were silver diamine fluoride and water-based silver fluoride. Results: The statistical analysis was completed by comparing the positive control growth of the buccal mucosa fibroblasts to the growth of cells exposed to various materials. The one-way ANOVA with Tukey's HSD result was completed. All the assessed materials compared to the control wells for both the 24 and 48 h time intervals indicated a significant cytocompatibility result, except for the test wells with Stela (SDI) at the 24 h time interval. There was no significant difference between the step 2 liquids and the two dental materials in cytocompatibility at the 24 h interval. All four materials indicated no significant differences between the cytocompatibility of any dental materials for 48 h. Conclusion: The cytocompatibility assessment for Riva Star and Riva Star Aqua with the direct method in a full dispensing drop is not viable for step 1 of the fluoride-containing liquids. The use of Stela Light Cure is a suitable material that will be in contact with buccal mucosa as it showed potential for increased cytocompatibility compared to Riva Light Cure. Riva Star Aqua is more cytocompatible than Riva Star.
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.