Evaluation of the <i>in vitro</i> biocompatibility of a new fast‐setting ready‐to‐use root filling and repair material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the in vitro biocompatibility of iRoot FS (Innovative BioCeramix Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada) and to compare its performance with those of iRoot BP Plus (Innovative BioCeramix Inc.) and ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA; Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK, USA). METHODOLOGY: MC3T3-E1 cells were cultured for 1, 2 and 3 days in various dilutions of iRoot FS, iRoot BP Plus and MTA extracts after 7 days of setting to assess cell viability using a cell counting kit-8 (Dojindo, Kumamoto, Japan). The cell apoptosis induced by the set material extracts was evaluated through annexin V-propidium iodide flow cytometry. Changes in the cytoskeletal organization and stress fibres were observed through immunofluorescence by labelling the fibrous actin and nuclei of the cells. Cell attachment was observed under a scanning electron microscope after the MC3T3-E1 cells were cultured on the surface of a material disc set for 1 day. The data were analysed using one-way anova. RESULTS: iRoot FS extracts induced higher cell viability than the control extracts (P < 0.05) at levels comparable to those of iRoot BP Plus and MTA. Compared with the control group, iRoot FS did not promote cell apoptosis. Stretched stress fibres and cytoskeletons were detected in the cells treated with iRoot FS extracts. Scanning electron microscopy revealed that the MC3T3-E1 cells attached to iRoot FS appeared flatter and exhibited better stretch than those attached to the other extracts. CONCLUSIONS: iRoot FS displayed in vitro biocompatibility with MC3T3-E1 cells by promoting cellular proliferation and attachment without causing cell apoptosis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".