Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40450233›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2025

Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity evaluation of AH Plus, Well-Root ST, and AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer.

Aysenur Oncu, Duru Aras Tosun, Berkan Celikten, Arda Buyuksungur

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

4 authors.

Aysenur OncuFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3130-0669
Duru Aras TosunFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Ankara University, Yenimahalle/Ankara, Turkey. duruaras@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8236-4315
Berkan CeliktenFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5645-5029
Arda BuyuksungurFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Ankara University, Yenimahalle/Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1978-2888

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of AH Plus, Well-Root ST, and AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer on osteoblast cells.

methodsTo prepare AH Plus, equal amounts of paste A and paste B were mixed following the manufacturer's instructions. The AH Plus BCS and Well Root ST syringes were fitted with appropriate cannulas. Root canal sealers (RCSs) prepared in a laminar flow cabinet under aseptic conditions were placed in a single layer in 24-well plates with a circular shape of 13 mm diameter. To simulate contact between cells and RCSs, materials were diluted in culture media and the resulting extract was then applied to the cells. The initial extracts (1:1) were then serially diluted with culture medium at ratios of 1:2, 1:4, 1:8, and 1:16. To determine the cytotoxic effects of RCSs on SAOS-2 cells, 20,000 cells were seeded in each well of 24-well culture plates. The cells were incubated for periods of 0, 8, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h with or without different concentrations of RCSs (1:1, 1:2, 1:4, 1:8, and 1:16 dilutions). Each experimental group was replicated three times to ensure reliable results and to calculate the standard deviation. Cell viability was assessed using the trypan blue exclusion method, which differentiates live (unstained) and dead (blue-stained) cells. TUNEL assay for apoptosis assessment was performed to evaluate genotoxicity. All statistical analyses were performed using the GraphPad software (Prism ver.10.0 San Diego, California, USA). Differences between RCS groups were assessed using One-way ANOVA analysis. Tukey's test was used to compare at a significance level of p < 0.05.

resultsCell viability was affected with 1:1 and 1:2 dilutions of any of the RCSs from 24 to 72 h. 1:4, 1:8 and 1:16 concentrations were not cytotoxic at any time points. Cytotoxic effects of AH Plus were higher at 24, 48, and 72 h compared to the Well-Root ST and AH Plus BCS (p < 0.0001). In terms of genotoxicity, both 1:1 and 1:2 dilutions of all RCSs showed significant differences at 48th hours compared to the controls. The toxic effect at the genetic level was significantly increased in the AH Plus group compared to the bioceramic sealers at 1:1 dilution (p = 0,0188 and p = 0,0331 for Well-Root ST and AH Plus BCS, respectively).

conclusionAlthough genotoxic and cytotoxic effects were observed in all RCSs, the toxicity of AH Plus was higher than Well-Root ST and AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer.

Indexed as

Epoxy ResinsOsteoblastsRoot Canal Filling MaterialsApoptosisCell Line, TumorCell SurvivalDNA DamageHumansMaterials TestingMutagenicity TestsTime Factorsepoxy resin-based root canal sealerEpoxy ResinsRoot Canal Filling MaterialsCytotoxicityGenotoxicityOsteoblastsRoot canal sealers

Identifiers

PMID40450233
PMCPMC12125775

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.