ArticleHead & face medicine2026
Transepithelial electrical resistance and cellular viability responses to teething gels: an in vitro study.
Article in Head & face medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the in vitro effects of commercially available teething gels with different formulations on epithelial barrier integrity and cellular viability. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix commercially available teething gels were tested at concentrations of 0.1%, 20%, 50%, and 80%. Cellular viability was assessed using the MTT assay in human gingival mesenchymal stem cells after 72 h of exposure. Epithelial barrier integrity was evaluated by measuring transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) in HaCaT keratinocyte cells cultured on transwell inserts at 24, 48, and 72 h. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27, applying mixed-design and two-way ANOVA with appropriate post hoc tests, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsTEER values differed significantly according to gel type, concentration, and exposure time (p < 0.05). At 0.1%, significant intergroup differences were observed at 24 h (p = 0.001) and 72 h (p = 0.017), with Dentinox showing significantly lower TEER values than Gengigel, Aftamed, Buccotherm, and Jack N'Jill. At 20%, 50%, and 80% concentrations, Dentinox consistently exhibited reduced TEER levels at 24-72 h (p = 0.001), whereas Gengigel showed higher TEER values mainly at 24 h (20%) and 72 h (50%), and Buccotherm at 48 h across higher concentrations. MTT analysis revealed significant gel- and concentration-dependent differences at 20%, 50%, and 80% (p = 0.001). Jack N'Jill exhibited higher cell viability at 20%, while both Jack N'Jill and Buccotherm showed higher viability at 50% and 80%.
conclusionsTeething gels exert formulation, concentration, and time-dependent effects on epithelial barrier integrity and cellular viability, emphasizing the need for careful evaluation of products intended for infant use. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates that teething gels with different formulations and concentrations can differentially affect epithelial barrier integrity and cellular viability. These findings highlight the clinical importance of carefully evaluating teething gel composition and concentration, particularly for products intended for use in infants and young children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42321842What 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.