Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41107481›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Comparative evaluation of the cytotoxic effect of two different gutta percha solvents.

Esraa Samir S Faisal, Mohamed I Rabie, Sherouk H Hassan Hussein

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Esraa Samir S FaisalDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Sinai University, Sinai, Egypt. esamir1307@gmail.com.
Mohamed I RabieDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
Sherouk H Hassan HusseinDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gutta percha solvents play an important role in removing filling materials from dentinal tubules, allowing irrigation solution to penetrate the tubules. The solvents should be biocompatible and have minimal effects on the viability of periapical tissues. Otherwise, they will result in intense inflammatory reactions and interfere with periapical healing. Aim This in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the cytotoxicity of two gutta percha solvents; grapefruit oil and orange oil. Biological testing was carried out on human fibroblasts that were retrieved from the cell bank and then cultured. Two gutta percha solvents (grapefruit oil and orange oil) were added to the cultured cells. Cell viability was evaluated using a WST-1 assay. The effect was evaluated after exposure to various concentrations at 24 h and 72 h. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Grapefruit oil had the most significant cytotoxicity followed by orange oil which had the least significant cytotoxicity. The cytotoxicity of the two solvents used was directly proportional to their concentration. Orange oil could be recommended as a solvent for gutta percha because of its low toxicity.

Indexed as

Gutta-PerchaPlant OilsSolventsCells, CulturedCell SurvivalCitrus paradisiFibroblastsHumansGutta-Perchaorange oilPlant OilsSolventsCytotoxicityGrapefruit oilGutta percha solventsOrange oilWST-1 assay

Identifiers

PMID41107481
PMCPMC12534367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.