ArticleBrazilian oral research2026
Evaluation of bioactive restorative materials on cell viability using direct and extract methods.
Article in Brazilian oral research, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The biological response of gingival fibroblasts to restorative materials is a key factor in determining the clinical success. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of four restorative materials on the viability of gingival fibroblast cell cultures using a real-time cell analysis system with direct extract methods. Four different restorative materials with bioactive properties were used in this study: Glasiosite (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany), BEAUTIFIL-Bulk Restorative (Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan), EQUIA Forte™ HT Fil (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), and Activa BioACTIVE Restorative® (Pulpdent Corporation, Watertown, USA). Disc-shaped specimens were prepared for each material group (n = 18 and n = 9 for each test method). The effects of the materials on gingival fibroblast viability were determined using both direct and extract methods with a real-time cell analysis system (xCELLigence) at two different time periods (24 h and 48 h). A significance level of α = 0.05 was adopted for all statistical analyses. The control group exhibited the highest cell viability, and the differences between the groups were statistically significant at both 24 h and 48 h (p < 0.05). At both 24 h and 48 h, Glasiosite showed the highest cell viability among the tested materials, whereas the BEAUTIFIL-Bulk Restorative exhibited the lowest cell viability (p < 0.05). Cell viability was significantly higher with the extract method than with the direct contact method across all materials, except for the control (p < 0.05). This study revealed that the cell viability varied significantly depending on the material type, exposure time, and test method. Glasiosite showed the highest biocompatibility, while the BEAUTIFIL-Bulk Restorative exhibited the lowest value.
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.