ArticleBDJ open2024
Investigation of the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the cockle shell-derived calcium silicate-based pulp capping material: a pilot study.
Article in BDJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
introductionHard-setting calcium hydroxide-based materials, e.g., Dycal and Life, have been widely used for direct pulp capping. However, various studies have shown undesirable effects such as high solubility and unpredictable dentine bridge formation. Bioceramic, mainly composed of tricalcium and dicalcium silicates, e.g., mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine, have provided more desirable physical and biological properties. This study aims to measure the physical properties, chemical properties, and biological response of human dental pulp cells (HDPCs) on three dental pulp-capping materials, Dycal, Life, and cockle shell-derived tricalcium silicate pulp capping material (C-Cap).
methodsC-Cap was prepared from cockle shells and rice husk ash. Its chemical composition was identified using X-ray diffractometry. The setting time, flow, solubility, and radiopacity tests were performed following the International Organization for Standardization 6876:2012. pH and calcium ion release were measured. The materials were subjected to an extraction medium at various concentrations and subsequently measured for cytotoxicity and migration on HDPCs, from three healthy, mature permanent teeth from different donors. Osteogenic differentiation was assessed by examining alkaline phosphatase enzyme activity and alizarin red staining assay. The data were tested for a normal distribution. The differences among groups were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparison test (p < 0.05).
resultsThe setting time of each material was approximately 1-2 min. C-Cap showed the lowest solubility (10.27% ± 1.02%) compared to Dycal (12.67% ± 0.94%) and Life (12.74% ± 1.33%), with a significant difference (p < 0.05). All materials exhibited radiopacity ranging from 2.4 to 2.9 mm of aluminum. C-Cap had the highest flow, alkalinity, and calcium ion release. C-Cap was significantly less cytotoxic than Dycal and Life (p < 0.05). The migration of HDPCs cultured in C-Cap extraction medium (27.74% ± 0.12%) was comparable to that in serum-free medium (27.09% ± 0.08%) with a significant difference (p < 0.05). The mineralization by HDPCs maintained in C-Cap extraction medium was significantly higher than those in Dycal and Life extraction mediums with a significant difference (p < 0.05).
conclusionsC-Cap, a tricalcium silicate-based pulp capping material has potential for further development. C-Cap exhibited comparable physical properties and superior biological properties when compared to Dycal and Life.
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.