Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40641583›Full record

ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2025

Ružica Bandić, Ivna Vuković Kekez, Vedrana Čikeš Čulić, Ivan Galić, Gordana Paić Karega, Danijela Kalibović Govorko

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 3D printed aligner materials:Bioinformation · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ružica BandićDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0811-6983
Ivna Vuković KekezDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9616-420X
Vedrana Čikeš ČulićDepartment of Medical Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4415-4410
Ivan GalićDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of Split Križine, Split, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0387-9535
Gordana Paić KaregaDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3439-0519
Danijela Kalibović GovorkoDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2598-9009

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This study evaluated the cytotoxicity of different thermoplastic materials and the impact of thermoforming on their cytotoxicity. Materials and methods: Four 3D thermoplastic materials were tested before and after thermoforming: Zendura A (Bay Materials), Zendura FLX (Bay Materials), Erkoloc-pro (Erkodent), and CA Pro + (Scheu Dental). The samples were stored in artificial saliva and incubated at 37 °C for 14 days to simulate conditions in the oral cavity during one stage of clear aligner treatment. Then, the saliva was diluted with a complete culture medium at three concentrations: c1=10%, c2=20% and c3=30%. Cytotoxic activities of the materials were evaluated after incubation for 4h, 24h, 48h, and 72h by using the CCK-8 assay on human oral fibroblast cells (Innoprot, REF: P10868). Results: The mean measured values of metabolically active cells below 70% of the control were for c3 of non-thermoformed Zendura A and Erkoloc-pro, and thermoformed Zendura A, after 72-hour incubation. The analysis showed differences between non-thermoformed: Zendura A and Erkoloc-pro and Zendura FLX and CA Pro +, thermoformed: Zendura A and CA Pro +, and Zendura FLX and CA Pro + at certain conditions. Differences between concentrations (c2 vs. c3 and c1 vs. c3) in the non-thermoformed group were found. There were no statistically significant differences in cytotoxicity between non-thermoformed and thermoformed groups. Conclusions: Cytotoxicity was observed in non-thermoformed and thermoformed materials, with significant differences between concentrations of the same material. However, the thermoforming process did not impact the cytotoxicity of clear aligner materials.

Indexed as

BiocompatibilityCell cultureCytotoxinsDental materialsFibroblastsLong Term Adverse EffectsMeSH Terms: Removable Orthodontic AppliancesOrthodontic appliancesRemovable

Identifiers

PMID40641583
PMCPMC12239645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.