ArticlePloS one2024
Investigation of the biocompatibility of various pulp capping materials on zebrafish model.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Resin-Modified Calcium Silicate-Based Materials Versus Conventional Formulations in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Vital Pulp Therapy Procedures in Pediatric Dentistry.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Vital Pulp Therapy Using Resin-Modified Versus Conventional Calcium Silicate-Based Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Evaluation of thermal rise on simulated pulp tissue during light-cured direct capping in vitro: an artificial microcirculation study.BMC oral health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Testing the biocompatibility of commercially available dental materials is a major challenge in dental material science. In the present study, the biocompatibility of four commercially available dental materials Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Biodentine, Harvard BioCal-CAP and Oxford ActiveCal PC was investigated. The biocompatibility analysis was performed on zebrafish embryos and larvae using standard toxicity tests such as survivability and hatching rates. Comparative toxicity analysis of toxicity was performed by measuring apoptosis using acridine orange dye and whole mount immunofluorescence methods on zebrafish larvae exposed to the dental materials at different dilutions. Toxicity analysis showed a significant decrease in survival and hatching rates with increasing concentration of exposed materials. The results of the apoptosis assay with acridine orange showed greater biocompatibility of Biodentine, Oxford ActiveCal PC, Harvard BioCal-CAP and Biodentine compared to MTA, which was concentration dependent. Consequently, this study has shown that showed resin-modified calcium silicates are more biocompatible than traditional calcium silicates.
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.