Cytotoxicity of adhesive systems of different hydrophilicities on cultured odontoblast‐like cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the cytotoxicity of experimental adhesive systems (EASs) on odontoblast-like cells. Paper discs (n = 132) were impregnated with 10 µL of each EAS-R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 (in an ascending order of hydrophilicity), followed by photoactivation. R1 and R2 are nonsolvated hydrophobic blends, R3 represents a simplified etch-and-rinse adhesive system, and R4 and R5 represent simplified self-etch adhesive systems. Discs were immersed in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium for 24 h to obtain eluates applied on MDPC-23 cell cultures. No material was applied on discs used as control (R0). Cell viability [3-(4,5-dimethythiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide assay], total protein (TP) production, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, type of cell death, and degree of monomer conversion Fourier transform infrared (%DC-FTIR) were evaluated. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (α = 0.05). Considering R0 (control) as having 100% of cell viability, R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 reduced the metabolic activity of cells by 36.4, 3.1, 0.2, 21.5, and 65.7%, respectively, but only R1 and R5 differed from R0. Comparing with R0, lower TP production was observed for R1, R4, and R5, while ALP activity decreased for R1 and R5. Necrotic cell death was predominant for all EASs, but only R1, R4, and R5 differed from R0. Only R5 presented a different apoptotic cell death ratio from R0. R1 presented the lowest %DC (ca. 37%), whereas R4 and R5 presented the highest (ca. 56%). In conclusion, R2 and R3 were not toxic to the MDPC-23 cells, suggesting that the degree of hydrophilicity or %DC of the EASs alone were not responsible for their cytopathic effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".