ArticleOdontology2026
Biocompatibility of printed, milled, and conventionally fabricated indirect resin-based restorative materials: an in vitro comparative study.
Article in Odontology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increasing use of digitally fabricated resin-based materials for definitive dental restorations has raised concerns regarding their biological performance and biocompatibility. This in vitro study evaluated the biocompatibility and surface characteristics of different indirect resin-based restorative materials used in definitive dental restorations. A total of 144 disc-shaped specimens (diameter 15 mm, height 2 mm) were fabricated using printed, milled, and conventional resins (48 specimens per material), with 12 specimens allocated to each analysis (n=12). Specimens were sterilized using ultraviolet irradiation. Culture medium extracts were obtained on days 1, 3, and 7 and evaluated using L929 mouse fibroblast cells. Cell viability was assessed using the XTT assay, apoptosis by Annexin V-FITC/PI staining, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) release using a Mouse IL-6 ELISA kit. Cell viability, apoptosis, and IL-6 levels were analyzed using two-way ANOVA; surface roughness was analyzed using one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's HSD post hoc tests (p<0.05). Significant differences were observed among the manufacturing groups across incubation periods in terms of cell viability, apoptosis rate, and IL-6 release (p<0.05). The milled-resin group showed the highest cell viability on day 7, whereas the conventional resin group showed the lowest (p<0.05). On days 3 and 7, the conventional resin group exhibited the highest rates of apoptosis and IL-6 release (p<0.05). Both printed and milled-resin groups showed no significant impact on fibroblast cell responses, whereas exposure to eluates from the conventional resin group resulted in altered cell viability, IL-6 levels, and apoptosis, suggesting potential cytotoxicity relevant to material selection for definitive prosthodontic restorations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42322503What 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.