ArticleOdontology2026
Dental microbrush tips: absence of acute cytotoxicity and NF-κB activation in human oral cells.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dental microbrushes are widely used in adhesive and restorative dentistry; however, flocked nylon designs have been reported to release fibers during clinical manipulation. While such remnants have been discussed in the context of bonding integrity, their potential biological impact on adjacent oral soft tissues remains unclear. The present study investigated the cytotoxic and inflammatory effects of commercially available flocked nylon and elastomer-based dental microbrushes on primary human gingival fibroblasts and HSC-2 oral epithelial cells. Cells were exposed to six microbrush types under direct contact conditions for 24 h. Cell viability was assessed by MTT assay and trypan blue exclusion. Inflammatory activation was evaluated by reverse transcription-quantitative PCR analysis of IL6, IL8 (CXCL8), CCL8, and CCL20 expression, CXCL8 protein quantification by ELISA, and immunofluorescence analysis of NF-κB p65 nuclear translocation. Pro-inflammatory stimulation with IL-1β and TNF-α served as a positive control. None of the tested microbrushes significantly reduced cell viability or induced transcriptional upregulation of inflammatory mediators. CXCL8 protein secretion remained unchanged, and NF-κB signaling was not activated following microbrush exposure. In contrast, cytokine stimulation robustly induced inflammatory responses, confirming the sensitivity of the experimental model. Within the limitations of this in vitro model, commercially available dental microbrushes did not trigger measurable cytotoxicity or pro-inflammatory signaling in oral soft tissue cells. These findings support the short-term biological compatibility of the investigated materials while highlighting the need for further studies addressing chronic exposure, inflammatory priming, and immune cell involvement.
Identifiers
42324440What 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.