Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42558129›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry2026

Cytocompatibility assessment of an anaerobic adhesive for use in implant dentistry: An in vitro study.

Barbara Magalhães Figueiredo Dias, Clara Almeida Mares, Beatriz Gomes de Lucardians, Talyta Couto de Freitas, Ana Flor Sá, Danilo Rocha Dias, Ivana Márcia Alves Diniz, Frederico Santos Lages

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Barbara Magalhães Figueiredo DiasSchool of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7378-5959
Clara Almeida MaresSchool of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8592-0003
Beatriz Gomes de LucardiansSchool of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6991-2329
Talyta Couto de FreitasSchool of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1130-269X
Ana Flor SáSchool of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5914-5130
Danilo Rocha DiasDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9194-8774
Ivana Márcia Alves DinizDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4261-0037
Frederico Santos LagesDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8885-1138

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluated the cytotoxic effects of anaerobic adhesive and its impact on cell viability and migration of epithelial and mesenchymal cells. Methods: The assays were conducted on commercially obtained eukaryotic cells: human keratinocytes (HaCaT) and mouse fibroblasts (L929). For cytotoxicity assessment, HaCaT cells were exposed to the adhesive extravasation after screwing the abutment‒implant assembly, and L929 cells were placed in contact with medium conditioned with the adhesive at concentrations of 0.5% and 1.0%. Cell viability was measured using the MTT reduction test, and migration was assessed with the scratch assay in L929 cells. Relative cytotoxic potential was determined with a negative control set at 100% viability. ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey analysis was performed. Results: The evaluated anaerobic adhesive exhibited cytotoxic potential, especially in L929 fibroblasts. Cell migration was significantly reduced in mouse fibroblasts. Conclusion: This study indicated that although the application of anaerobic adhesive is limited to the threads of abutment screws and is handled responsibly, further studies are needed before recommending its use in implantology due to its cytotoxicity.

Indexed as

BiomechanicsCell migration assayCell survivalCell viabilityDental implants

Identifiers

PMID42558129
PMCPMC13437219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.