Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35124840›Full record

ReviewInternational endodontic journal2022

A critical analysis of research methods and experimental models to study biocompatibility of endodontic materials.

Sepanta Hosseinpour, Alexis Gaudin, Ove A Peters

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International endodontic journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Chinese introduction to Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology 2021 checklist].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Sepanta HosseinpourSchool of Dentistry, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6503-4223
Alexis GaudinInserm, UMR 1229, RMeS, Regenerative Medicine and Skeleton, Université de Nantes, ONIRIS, Nantes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4139-8927
Ove A PetersSchool of Dentistry, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5222-8718

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Materials used for endodontics and with direct contact to tissues have a wide range of indications, from vital pulpal treatments to root filling materials and those used in endodontic surgery. In principle, interaction with dental materials may result in damage to tissues locally or systemically. Thus, a great variety of test methods are applied to evaluate a materials' potential risk of adverse biological effects to ensure their biocompatibility before commercialization. However, the results of biocompatibility evaluations are dependent on not only the tested materials but also the test methods due to the diversity of these effects and numerous variables involved. In addition, diverse biological effects require equally diverse assessments on a structured and planned approach. Such a structured assessment of the materials consists of four phases: general toxicity, local tissue irritation, pre-clinical tests and clinical evaluations. Various types of screening assays are available; it is imperative to understand their advantages and limitations to recognize their appropriateness and for an accurate interpretation of their results. Recent scientific advances are rapidly introducing new materials to endodontics including nanomaterials, gene therapy and tissue engineering biomaterials. These new modalities open a new era to restore and regenerate dental tissues; however, all these new technologies can also present new hazards to patients. Before any clinical usage, new materials must be proven to be safe and not hazardous to health. Certain international standards exist for safety evaluation of dental materials (ISO 10993 series, ISO 7405 and ISO 14155-1), but researchers often fail to follow these standards due to lack of access to standards, limitation of the guidelines and complexity of new experimental methods, which may cause technical errors. Moreover, many laboratories have developed their testing strategy for biocompatibility, which makes any comparison between findings more difficult. The purpose of this review was to discuss the concept of biocompatibility, structured test programmes and international standards for testing the biocompatibility of endodontic material biocompatibility. The text will further detail current test methods for evaluating the biocompatibility of endodontic materials, and their advantages and limitations.

Indexed as

EndodonticsRoot Canal Filling MaterialsBiocompatible MaterialsDental MaterialsHumansModels, TheoreticalResearch DesignBiocompatible MaterialsDental MaterialsRoot Canal Filling Materialsanimal testingbiocompatibilitycytotoxicityendodontic materialsgenotoxicitymutagenicity

Identifiers

PMID35124840
PMCPMC9315036

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.