SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2021 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2

Cytotoxicity of two self-adhesive flowable composites on bovine dental pulp-derived cells

Firdevs KAHVECİOĞLU
Türkay KÖLÜŞ
Fatma SAĞ GÜNGÖR
Hayriye Esra ÜLKER
Pages
209–212
Publication Date
2021-03-28
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

There is statistically significant difference between the control group and the test groups in term of the percentages of cell viability (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The use of self-adhesive composites in dental treatment relatively a new concept.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and method: Experimental test samples (2×5mm) of Vertise Flow and Nova Compo SF Flow were prepared.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There is statistically significant difference between the control group and the test groups in term of the percentages of cell viability (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:self-adhesive flowable composite · cytotoxicity · cell culture

Abstract

Aim: The use of self-adhesive composites in dental treatment relatively a new concept. The aim of this study was to in-vitro evaluation cytotoxicity of Vertise Flow and Nova Compo SF Flow self-adhesive flowable composites on bovine dental pulp-derived cells. Material and method: Experimental test samples (2×5mm) of Vertise Flow and Nova Compo SF Flow were prepared. Bovine dental pulp-derived cells were incubated in MEM-Alpha (Gibco-Invitrogen). The material samples to be tested were stored in the culture medium for 24 hours and therefore obtained extracts were applied onto the cells. The cell viability was determined by MTT assay. One-way ANOVA and Tukey-HSD post hoc tests used for statistical analysis. Results: The percentage of cell viability of Vertise Flow found as 81,55%, Nova Compo SF Flow found as 71,40%. There is statistically significant difference between the control group and the test groups in term of the percentages of cell viability (p

🔖

Cite This Article

KAHVECİOĞLU, F., KÖLÜŞ, T., GÜNGÖR, F. S., ÜLKER, H. E. (2021). Cytotoxicity of two self-adhesive flowable composites on bovine dental pulp-derived cells. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2, 209–212. https://ajindex.com/articles/776990

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, et al. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003; 28:215
  2. Van Meerbeek B, Vargas M, Inoue S, Yoshida Y, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, et al. Adhesives and cements to promote preservation dentistry. Oper Dent 2001; 119–44
  3. Alex G. Is total-etch dead? Evidence suggests otherwise. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2012; 33: 12–4
  4. Ozer F, Blatz MB. Self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems in clinical dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2013; 34: 12–4
  5. Poss SD. Utilization of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin. Dent Today 2010 29: 104
  6. Vichi A, Margvelashvili M, Goracci C, Papacchini F, Ferrari M. Bonding and sealing ability of a new self-adhering flowable composite resin in class I restorations. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Jul; 17: 1497–506
  7. Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials 2008; 29: 2941–53
  8. Cardoso M V, de Almeida Neves A, Mine A, et al. Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Aust Dent J 2011; 56: 31–44
  9. Silva e Souza Junior MH, Carneiro KGK, Lobato MF, Silva e Souza P de AR, Góes MF de. Adhesive systems: important aspects related to their composition and clinical use. J Appl Oral Sci 2010; 18: 207–14
  10. Küçükyılmaz E, Çelik EU, Savas S, Bölükbaşi B. Comparison of microleakage of self-adhesive flowable composites in class V cavities. Cumhur Dent J 2015 1; 18: 116–27
  11. Hanks CT, Wataha JC, Sun Z. In vitro models of biocompatibility: a review. Dent Mater 1996; 12: 186–93
  12. Shin H, Ko H, Kim M. Cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of Zirconia (Y-TZP) posts with various dental cements. Restor Dent Endod 2016; 41: 167–75
  13. Koohpeima F, Mokhtari MJ, Doozandeh M, Jowkar Z, Yazdanshenas F. Comparison of Cytotoxicity of New Nanohybrid Composite, Giomer, Glass Ionomer and Silver Reinforced Glass Ionomer using Human Gingival Fibroblast Cell Line. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017; 41: 368–73
  14. Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practitioners. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86: 203–9
  15. Schmalz G. Concepts in biocompatibility testing of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 1998; 1: 154–62
  16. Bean TA, Zhuang WC, Tong PY, Eick JD, Chappelow CC, Yourtee DM. Comparison of tetrazolium colorimetric and 51Cr release assays for cytotoxicity determination of dental biomaterials. Dent Mater 1995; 11: 327–31
  17. Malkoc MA, Demir N, Şengün A, Bozkurt ŞB