ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Cytotoxicity assessment of eluates from vacuum-forming thermoplastics.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Environmental Burden and Sustainability Challenges of Clear Aligners: Implications for Public Health, Practice, Policy, and Future Research-A Scoping Review.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate possible cytotoxic effects of thermoplastic materials commonly used for occlusal splints and orthodontic appliances.
methodsSeven thermoplastics were included: three variants of the Essix sheets (C+, Plus, and Tray Rite; Dentsply Sirona), three thermoplastics (Bleach Heavy, Splint, and X-Heavy; Cavex Holland) and Invisalign (Align Technology). Cylindrical specimens (n = 24; 10 mm diameter) were incubated in cell culture medium for 24 h and 14 days. After incubation, the medium was collected, serially diluted, and dosed to primary human gingival fibroblasts in triplicate. Medium processed like the samples was used as negative control. Cell viability was evaluated by XTT and LDH assay to assess metabolic activity and membrane integrity, respectively. Next, cell cycle was assessed with flow cytometry after exposing HGFs to undiluted extracts.
resultsThe 24-hour and 14-day extracts did not evoke cytotoxicity after 24-hour incubation. No significant differences in cell viability (one-way ANOVA, p > 0.05 ) in the XTT and LDH assays or in cell cycle distribution between the different materials (two-way ANOVA, p > 0.05 ).
conclusionThe thermoplastics tested in the study showed no evident in-vitro cytotoxic effects. Further investigation should focus on determining which compounds are released from thermoplastic materials and assessing potential toxicity related to exposure to these compounds. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Our study adds to the growing body of evidence on the biocompatibility of dental thermoplastics. This can aid clinical decision-making, as thermoplastics are expected to be safe to use in terms of cytotoxicity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39365355What 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.