ArticleBrazilian dental journal2024
Biological Properties of Bioceramic Sealers on Osteoblastic Cells: A Comparative Study.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 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.
- Osteogenic Potential of Various Premixed Hydraulic Calcium Silicate-Based Sealers on Human Bone Marrow Stem Cells.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Clinical and radiographic success of single-cone bioceramic obturation versus traditional techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the biological properties of two ready-to-use bioceramic sealers (EndoSequence BC Sealer - EBCS; Bio-C Sealer - BCS) on osteoblastic lineage cells. MC3T3 osteoblast-like cells were exposed to extracts of bioceramic materials. Cytotoxicity was evaluated using the MTT method, genotoxicity was assessed by the micronucleus test and the expression of BMP1, BMP2 and ALP was measured by RT-qPCR, after 1, 3 and 7 days. Wound healing was monitored at 1, 2 and 3-day intervals using the scratch test. Statistical analysis involved a two-factor ANOVA, followed by the Tukey Test for multiple comparisons (α=0.05). Cytotoxicity assessment revealed no significant differences between the materials and the control group at any of the time points, indicating that neither material exhibited cytotoxic effects. However, both cements induced greater micronuclei formation compared to the control on days 1 and 7 (p<0.05) when evaluating genotoxicity. No significant differences between the groups were observed in wound healing at any of the time intervals. Both biomaterials upregulated the expression of BMP1, BMP2 and ALP. The two bioceramic sealers exhibited comparable biological properties, including cytocompatibility, promotion of wound healing, and upregulation of bone formation-related genes in osteoblast-like cells. While these results suggest the potential for safe clinical application, the observed genotoxicity warrants caution. Therefore, while the null hypothesis-that the two bioceramic sealers exhibit analogous properties-was accepted in terms of cytocompatibility and gene expression, further investigation is essential to fully ensure their safety and efficacy in bone-related 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.