ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of dentin conditioners on biomarker release and microhardness of radicular dentin: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
aimThis study investigated the effects of various radicular dentin conditioning agents, maleic acid, citric acid, phosphoric acid, and EDTA, on dentin-derived biomarker release and radicular dentin microhardness for regenerative endodontic applications. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty single-rooted teeth were processed into dentin cylinders and discs and randomly assigned to five groups (n = 12): 7% maleic acid, 10% citric acid, 37% phosphoric acid, 17% EDTA, and phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) as a negative control. Growth factor release (TGF-β, VEGF, BMP-2) was quantified using ELISA after 24 h incubation. Microhardness changes were evaluated in corresponding dentin cylinders sectioned longitudinally.
resultsMaleic acid produced the highest release of TGF-β, VEGF, and BMP-2 (p < 0.001), followed by EDTA, citric acid, and phosphoric acid in a biomarker-dependent hierarchy. Microhardness was significantly affected by the conditioning agent (p = 0.004), with EDTA and maleic acid reducing dentin hardness compared with the control, while citric acid and phosphoric acid showed no significant effect. No significant differences were observed among root thirds (p = 0.169).
conclusionDentin conditioning in regenerative endodontics involves a trade-off between biological activation and preservation of structural integrity. Stronger conditioning agents enhance growth factor release but may compromise dentin hardness. Among the tested agents, citric acid demonstrated the most balanced performance, combining effective biomarker release with minimal effects on dentin microhardness. In contrast, phosphoric acid preserved dentin structure but showed limited biological activity, making it less suitable when regenerative signaling is the primary objective. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The selection of dentin conditioning agents should not be based solely on their biological signaling potential, as it directly influences the mechanical properties of radicular dentin and may impact regenerative outcomes.
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.