ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Cytotoxic and antifungal effects of different teething oral gels: an in-vitro study.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2025. 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.
- Transepithelial electrical resistance and cellular viability responses to teething gels: an in vitro study.Head & face medicine · 2026Article
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
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of various teething oral gels, containing lidocaine, hyaluronic acid, and herbal-based ingredients, on cell viability and to compare the antifungal properties. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe effect of the six different teething oral gels (Gengigel Teething, Orajel Baby, Calgel, Hyland's Baby Organic Soothing Gel, Buccotherm Teething Gel and Aftamed Teething) on cell viability was evaluated through the MTT (3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5 diphenyl tetrazolium bromide) assay on L-929 mouse fibroblast cells. The antifungal activity of teething oral gels against Candida albicans ATCC 90,028, C. tropicalis ATCC 750, C. glabrata ATCC 2001, C. parapsilosis ATCC 22,019, and C. krusei ATCC 6258 was assessed using the broth dilution method.
resultsThe cell viability analysis revealed that Aftamed Teething exhibited the highest level of cytotoxicity among the tested teething oral gel products, whereas Buccotherm Teething Gel demonstrated the lowest cytotoxicity. The teething oral gels can be ordered based on their respective cytotoxicity profiles: Aftamed Teething (IC
conclusionTeething oral gels containing lidocaine, hyaluronic acid, and herbal formulations demonstrated varying degrees of cytotoxicity and antifungal efficacy. Herbal-based teething oral gels may be a more suitable option for young children compared to products containing lidocaine or hyaluronic acids, as they exhibit reduced cytotoxicity and enhanced biocompatibility. Lidocaine-containing gel may be preferred for opportunistic fungal infections, considering their high cytotoxic properties, solely to leverage their antifungal capabilities on different species. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lidocaine-containing teething oral gel has demonstrated potent antifungal properties on both C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species, but the high cytotoxic effect revealed by the study, together with reported adverse effects, precludes its recommendation for use in infants.
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.