ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Digital manufacturing techniques and the in vitro biocompatibility of acrylic-based occlusal device materials.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
- Towards standardizing cytotoxicity testing of 3D-printed orthodontic aligners and retainers: a scoping review.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- A Review of Current Systems, Materials, and Protocols for 3D-Printed Splints, Crowns, and Dentures.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Review
- Review
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
objectivesMaterial chemistry and workflow variables associated with the fabrication of dental devices may affect the biocompatibility of the dental devices. The purpose of this study was to compare digital and conventional workflow procedures in the manufacturing of acrylic-based occlusal devices by assessing the cytotoxic potential of leakage products.
methodsSpecimens were manufactured by 3D printing (stereolithography and digital light processing), milling, and autopolymerization. Print specimens were also subjected to different post-curing methods. To assess biocompatibility, a human tongue epithelial cell line was exposed to material-based extracts. Cell viability was measured by MTT assay while Western blot assessed the expression level of selected cytoprotective proteins.
resultsExtracts from the Splint 2.0 material printed with DLP technology and post-cured with the Asiga Flash showed the clearest loss of cell viability. The milled and autopolymerized materials also showed a significant reduction in cell viability. However, by storing the autopolymerized material in dH CONCLUSIONS/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the biocompatibility assessments, clinical outcomes of acrylic-based occlusal device materials may be affected by the choice of manufacturing technique and workflow procedures.
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.