ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2026
Cytotoxic Effects of Flowable Composite Resins with Different Resin Matrix Compositions on L929 Fibroblasts.
Article in Oral health & preventive 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.
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
objectiveTo evaluate the cytotoxic effects of flowable composite resins with different resin matrix characteristics on L929 fibroblast cells. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive flowable composite resins (GrandioSO Flow [GSF; VOCO Dental, Cuxhaven, Germany], EverX Flow [EXF; GC Europe, Leuven, Belgium], Admira Fusion Flow [AFF; VOCO Dental], Stark Bulk Fill Flow [SBFF; President Dental, Allershausen, Germany], and Estelite Bulk Fill Flow [EBFF; Tokuyama Dental, Tokyo, Japan]) were prepared as standardised discs (5 × 2 mm). Extracts obtained after 1 and 7 days of incubation were applied to L929 fibroblast cultures at different concentrations (direct, 1:2, 1:5, and 1:10 dilutions) for 24 and 48 hours. Cell viability was assessed using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5 diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. Data were analysed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test (α = 0.05).
resultsDirect exposure to all material extracts significantly reduced cell viability compared with the control group (P 0.0001). Cell viability increased with increasing dilution for all materials. EBFF and EXF consistently demonstrated the highest viability values and the most favourable biocompatibility profiles. In contrast, GSF exhibited the lowest cell viability values and the highest cytotoxic potential, particularly under direct exposure. AFF and SBFF showed intermediate responses. Overall, cell viability values were generally higher after 48 hours of exposure than after 24 hours.
conclusionThe cytotoxic effects of the flowable composite resins were concentration- and time-dependent. Although all tested materials generally maintained satisfactory cell viability under the evaluated conditions, significant differences were observed among the investigated materials. EBFF and EXF exhibited the most favourable biocompatibility, whereas GSF showed comparatively lower cell viability. Resin matrix characteristics, together with polymerisation-related factors, may influence the biological response of flowable composite resins.
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.