ArticleBMC oral health2025
In vitro assessment of cytotoxic, genotoxic, and antimicrobial properties of pediatric restorative dental materials.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThis study aimed to comparatively evaluate the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of three glass ionomer-based restorative materials and one alkasite material on murine fibroblast cells (L929). Additionally, their antibacterial activities against two prominent oral pathogens were investigated.
methodsThe tested materials included ChemFil Rock (Dentsply Sirona, Germany), EQUIA Forte HT Fil (GC, Japan), Ruby Liner (Rubydent, Turkey), and the alkasite material Cention Forte (Ivoclar Vivadent, Switzerland). Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity were assessed using the L929 fibroblast cell line through MTT and comet assays. Antibacterial properties against Streptococcus mutans and Enterococcus faecalis were determined using the agar diffusion method. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc test (GraphPad Prism v5.03). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.0001 for cytotoxicity and p < 0.05 for genotoxicity.
resultsAll tested materials exhibited cytotoxic and genotoxic effects on L929 cells, with no statistically significant differences among the groups. None of the materials demonstrated antibacterial activity, as indicated by the absence of inhibition zones against both S. mutans and E. faecalis.
conclusionsThe evaluated glass ionomer-based and alkasite restorative materials induced significant cytotoxic and genotoxic responses in vitro but showed no antibacterial efficacy. These findings underline the necessity for further in vivo investigations to determine their clinical safety and long-term biocompatibility.
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.