ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of Enzymatic-based chemomechanical caries removal agent on proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of dental pulp stem cells.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChemomechanical caries removal (CMCR) offers a non-invasive alternative to conventional drilling techniques; however, the potential cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of CMCR agents on the dental pulp complex remain underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of enzymatic-based CMCR on the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs).
methodsMTT assay, scratch assay, and gene expression analysis were conducted to assess cell proliferation (viability percentage), migration (wound healing percentage), and osteogenic differentiation (RT-qPCR). The viability of DPSCs after direct exposure to enzymatic-based CMCR (0.5%, 1%, and 2% in DMEM) was measured at 24 and 48 h post-exposure. Indirect exposure was also tested using sound mineralized (0.5 mm and 1 mm) and demineralized (0.5 mm) dentin discs. Scratch assay was performed for control, direct, and indirect groups at 0, 24, and 48 h, followed by fixation and crystal violet staining at 48 h. Dentin sialophosphoprotein (DSPP) gene expression was quantified using RT-qPCR after 48 h.
resultsTwo-way ANOVA of proliferation and migration assays revealed that both indirect (0.5 mm demineralized dentin) and direct (0.5% DMEM) exposure groups showed the lowest cytotoxic effect after 24 h (82.75 ± 3.37 and 68.11 ± 4.99, respectively). After 48 h, a recovery trend in DPSC viability was observed, with both groups exhibiting the highest proliferation (93.60 ± 4.67 and 78.25 ± 4.88, respectively). These groups also showed the highest wound closure percentages (78.78 ± 0.89 for direct and 74.19 ± 1.03 for indirect exposure). One-way ANOVA of RT-qPCR results demonstrated significant upregulation of DSPP gene expression in the indirect (0.5 mm demineralized dentin) group (5.35 ± 2.01, p < 0.05).
conclusionEnzymatic-based CMCR exhibits favorable biocompatibility, particularly when applied directly on DPSCs at low concentrations and when used indirectly through dentin discs. These findings suggest that this enzymatic caries removal approach is potentially safe, effective, and minimally invasive, making it suitable for conservative restorative dentistry.
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.