![Sample our Food Science & Technology journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5936/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Food-Science-Technology.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The choice of filling material is an important factor in the clinical success of root coverage. Therefore, the cytotoxicity of filling materials must be investigated to ensure a safe biological response. The aim of this study was to compare the response of L929 mouse fibroblasts to several glass ionomer cements (GICs), i.e. conventional GIC, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and polyacid-modified resin composite (PMRC), using three different methods. 1) 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, 2) agar diffusion test, 3) scanning electron microscopy.
The MTT test demonstrated that L929 fibroblast attachment to polyacid-modified resin composite filling material was excessive on day 1, but decreased on day 3 (P<0.05). When the cell proliferation percentages of all filling materials were compared with those of the control group (100%) on days 1 and 3, it was observed that statistically significant differences existed (P<0.05). Although resin-modified glass ionomer cement was determined to be slightly cytotoxic according to the results of agar diffusion tests, differences between the groups were not significant (P>0.05).
In addition to our in vitro research results, chemical surface analysis techniques, measurement of the release of elements, physical surface characterization and analysis of microstructure and porosity can provide a better understanding of the biological response to filling materials.