ArticleOdontology2026
Influence of different finishing and polishing protocols of composite CAD CAM blocks on surface roughness and biological response of gingival mesenchymal stem cells.
Article in Odontology, 2026. 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.
- Article
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
The surface quality of composite CAD/CAM restorations is vital in aesthetics, longevity, and the biological response of surrounding gingival tissues. Yet, little is known about how different finishing and polishing techniques influence cellular behavior at the tissue interface. This study aimed to evaluate how various finishing and polishing systems affect the surface roughness of composite CAD/CAM blocks, and how these differences influence the attachment, viability, and inflammatory response of gingival mesenchymal stem cells (GMSCs). Seventy-seven composite CAD/CAM specimens were prepared and subjected to one-step, two-step, and multi-step finishing/polishing protocols, with or without polishing paste. Surface roughness was measured using a digital profilometer. GMSCs were isolated from healthy donors, characterized, and cultured on the composite surfaces. Cell viability was assessed by MTT assay, adhesion was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and inflammation-related gene expression (IL-1β and TGF-β) was analyzed via q-PCR. Polished surfaces significantly reduced roughness and improved biological outcomes. Two-step finishing and polishing with paste resulted in the smoothest surfaces. GMSCs showed greater attachment and viability on polished composites, particularly in the two-step group. Inflammatory gene expression was lowest in polished groups, with IL-1β expression highest in unpolished specimens and TGF-β expression highest in the one-step groups. Finishing and polishing protocols directly impact the surface roughness as well as the biocompatibility of CAD/CAM composite surfaces. Smoother surfaces achieved through proper finishing and polishing enhance cell attachment and viability, and reduce inflammatory responses, highlighting the critical role of finishing in restorative success beyond aesthetics.
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.