A comparison of the in vitro cytotoxicity of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate cytotoxicity of experimental conventional and resin modified glass-ionomer cements on UMR-106 osteoblast cell cultures and cell cultures of NIH(3)T(3) mouse fibroblasts specimens were prepared for every experimental material and divided into: group 1.Conventional glass-ionomer cements: GC Fuji IX GP Fast, GC Fuji Triage and Ketac Silver; group 2. Resin modified glass-ionomer cements: GC Fuji II LC, GC Fuji Plus and Vitrebond; group 3. Positive control was presented by specimens of composite Vit-l-ecence® and negative control-group 4. was presented by α-minimum essential medium for UMR-106 - osteoblast-like cells and Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium for NIH(3)T(3) mouse fibroblast cells. Both cell cultures were exposed to 10% of eluate of each single specimen of each experimental material. Experimental dishes were incubated for 24 h. Cell metabolism was evaluated using methyltetrazolium assay. Kruskal-Wallis test and Tukey-Kramer post hoc test for the materials evaluated on NIH(3)T(3) mouse fibroblast cells, as well as UMR-106 osteoblast-like cells showed significantly more cytotoxicity of RMGICs, predominantly Vitrebond to both GICs and composite- Vit-l-ecence®.The lowest influence on cell's metabolism on UMR-106 osteoblas-like cells was shown by Ketac Silver and the lowest influence on cell's metabolism on NIH(3)T(3) mouse fibroblast cells was shown by Fuji IX GP Fast. Statistical evaluation of sensitivity of cell lines UMR-106 osteoblast-like cells and NIH(3)T(3) mouse fibroblast cells, using Mann-Whitney test, showed that NIH(3)T(3) mouse fibroblast cells were more sensitive for the evaluation of cytotoxicity of dental materials.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".