ArticleBiology2024
Engineering a Microphysiological Model for Regenerative Endodontic Studies.
Article in Biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A review of the wide applications of microfluidic devices in peri-implantitis, periodontitis, and endodontics.Odontology · 2026Review
- An Innovative "Tooth-On-Chip" Microfluidic Device Emulating the Structure and Physiology of the Dental Pulp Tissue.Advanced healthcare materials · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Dental pulp infections are common buccal diseases. When this happens, endodontic treatments are needed to disinfect and prepare the root canal for subsequent procedures. However, the lack of suitable in vitro models representing the anatomy of an immature root canal hinders research on regenerative events crucial in endodontics, such as regenerative procedures. This study aimed to develop a 3D microphysiological system (MPS) to mimic an immature root canal and assess the cytotoxicity of various irrigating solutions on stem cells. Utilizing the Dental Stem Cells SV40 (DSCS) cell line derived from human apical papilla stem cells, we analyzed the effects of different irrigants, including etidronic acid. The results indicated that irrigating solutions diminished cell viability in 2D cultures and influenced cell adhesion within the microphysiological device. Notably, in our 3D studies in the MPS, 17% EDTA and 9% 1-hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-bisphosphonate (HEBP) irrigating solutions demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of DSCS viability and adherence compared to the control. This study highlights the utility of the developed MPS for translational studies in root canal treatments and suggests comparable efficacy between 9% HEBP and 17% EDTA irrigating solutions, offering potential alternatives for clinical applications.
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.