ArticleBMC oral health2025
In vitro evaluation of cytotoxicity of fixed functional appliances.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- A dual-function rebamipide cubogel for enhanced ocular penetration and tear film restoration: optimization, safety, and in-vivo evaluation.Drug delivery and translational research · 2026Article
- Physical-Chemical Assessment and Antimicrobial Activity of Chlortetracycline-Loaded Collagen Sponges.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxicity of fixed functional appliances that are commonly used in the treatment of Class II malocclusion caused by mandibular retrognathia, using the MTT cell viability assays [3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide] (Sigma Chemical Co., Milan, Italy). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe cytotoxicity of five different fixed functional appliances commonly used in orthodontic treatments was assessed. The appliances evaluated included Jasper Jumper (American Orthodontics, Wisconsin, USA), Power Scope (American Orthodontics, Wisconsin, USA), Herbst (American Orthodontics, Wisconsin, USA), Forsus™ Fatigue Resistant Device Kits (3 M, MN, USA), and Twin Force Bite Corrector (Henry Schein Orthodontics, California, USA). Assays were conducted using one appliance from each type, resulting in a total of seven groups. Cytotoxicity testing was performed using the MTT assay on a human gingival fibroblast (HGF) cell line. Data analysis was conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis test with a significance level of p = 0.05.
resultsAll appliances demonstrated cell viability rates exceeding 90%, categorizing them as non-cytotoxic under ISO 10993-5 standards. Herbst exhibited the highest proliferation index (2.62 ± 1.13), while Power Scope (2.05 ± 1.06) and Jasper Jumper (1.90 ± 1.23) showed the lowest indices. Despite these variations, statistical analysis revealed no significant cytotoxic effects when compared to the control group (p > 0.05). All appliances were confirmed as biologically safe for cell health.
conclusionThe findings demonstrate that all evaluated appliances exhibit a biocompatible interaction with HGF cells, with no evidence of adverse cytotoxic effects. These results support the safe clinical use of these fixed functional appliances in orthodontic treatment.
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.