ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Regenerative endodontic treatments are being developed in veterinary dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility and odontogenic potential of three biomaterials, ProRoot Methods: cDPSCs were isolated from three healthy dog teeth extracted for clinical reasons and characterized by flow cytometry (CD44 Results: In suspension cultures, compared with MTA and RS+, CF maintained significantly higher metabolic activity and cell viability across several dilutions, indicating lower acute cytotoxicity. Under conditioned exposure, no significant differences among materials were observed, reflecting the dilution and buffering effects that mitigate early reactivity. All the materials supported Alizarin Red S-positive mineral deposition, with a significant difference at D3, when ARS staining of cDPSCs was greater in cells conditioned with MTA than in those conditioned with CF. Gene expression analysis revealed lower RUNX2 and ALPL expression in MTA-conditioned cells, suggesting, together with ARS staining, progression toward a more advanced osteogenic or odontogenic differentiation stage. MMP13 expression remained comparable across materials. Conclusion: MTA, RS+, and CF demonstrated overall biocompatibility with cDPSCs and supported odontogenic differentiation under clinically relevant conditions. CF exhibited the lowest acute cytotoxicity, indicating its potential as a carrier for DPSC-based regenerative endodontic applications. These findings support the translational importance of
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.