KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Cumhuriyet Dental Journal / 2012 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4

Cytotoxicity evaluation of methacrylate- and silorane-based composite resins

Ozden BEKTAŞ OZEL
Gulsah AKIN GOKTOLGA
Didem EREN
Zubeyde POLAT AKIN
Sayfa
327–334
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusions: The silorane-based composite resin was considered more biocompatible than the methacrylate- based composite resins.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate and compare the cytotoxic effects of four composite resin materials with different content.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Material and Methods: Two traditional methacrylate-based (Clearfil AP-X, RefleXions), as well as a self- adhering methacrylate-based (Vertise Flow) and a silorane-based (Filtek Silorane) composite resin were tested in the experiment.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusions: The silorane-based composite resin was considered more biocompatible than the methacrylate- based composite resins.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate and compare the cytotoxic effects of four composite resin materials with different content. Material and Methods: Two traditional methacrylate-based (Clearfil AP-X, RefleXions), as well as a self- adhering methacrylate-based (Vertise Flow) and a silorane-based (Filtek Silorane) composite resin were tested in the experiment. Ten cylindrical specimens were made of each material, using a mould (2mm. thick and 8 mm. in diameter). An agar diffusion method was employed, and cytotoxicity rankings were determined using lysis index scores. For statistical analysis, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used. Results: Amongst the composite resins, the silorane-based composite was found to be less cytotoxic than the methacrylate-based composite resins, which all had the same cytotoxicity ranking. Conclusions: The silorane-based composite resin was considered more biocompatible than the methacrylate- based composite resins.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

OZEL, O. B., GOKTOLGA, G. A., EREN, D., AKIN, Z. P. (2022). Cytotoxicity evaluation of methacrylate- and silorane-based composite resins. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4, 327–334. https://ajindex.com/articles/477226

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:68– 74
  2. Geurtsen W, Lehmann F, Sphal W, Leyhausen G. Cytotoxicity of 35 dental resin composite monomers/additives in permanent 3T3 and three human primary fibroblasts cultures. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;41:474–480
  3. Spahl W, Budzikiewicz H, Geurtsen W. Determination of leachable components from four commercial dental composites by gas and liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry. J Dent 1998;26:137–145
  4. Fong H, Dickens SH, Flaim GM. Evaluation of dental restorative composites containing polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane methacrylate. Dent Mater 2005;21:520-529
  5. Moszner N, Salz U. New developments of polymeric dental composites. Prog Polym Sci 2001;26:535–576
  6. Yesilyurt C, Yoldas O, Altintas SH, Kusgoz A. Effects of food- simulating liquids on the mechanical properties of a silorane based dental composite. Dent Mater J 2009;28(3):362-367
  7. Goldberg M. In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resin components: a review. Clin Oral Invest 2008;12:1–8
  8. Ferracane JL. Resin composite— State of the art. Dent Mater 2011; 27(1):29-38 9. Ernst C P, Meyer G R, Klöcker K, Willershausen B. Determination of polymerization shrinkage stress by means of a photoelastic investigation. Dent Mater 2004;20:313–321
  9. Ilie N, Jelen E, Clementino- Luedemann T, Hickel R. Low- shrinkage composite for dental application. Dent Mater J 2007;26:149–155
  10. Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Burke FJ, Marquis P M, Randall RC. The influence of short and medium- term water immersion on the hydrolytic stability of novel low-shrink dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:852–863
  11. Furuse AY, Gordon K, Rodrigues FP, Silikas N, Watts DC. Colour- stability and gloss-retention of silorane and dimethacrylate composite with accelerated aging. J Dent 2008;36:945–952
  12. Wataha JC, Hanks CT, Strawn SE, Fat JC. Cytotoxicity of components of resins and other dental restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21:453–462
  13. Hanks CT, Strawn SE, Wataha JC, Craig RG. Cytotoxic effects of resin components on cultured mammalian fibroblasts. J Dent Res 1991;70:1450–1455
  14. Geurtsen W, Lehmann F, Sphal W, Leyhausen G. Cytotoxicity of 35 dental resin composite monomers/additives in permanent 3T3 and three human primary fibroblasts cultures. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;41:474–480
  15. Ausiello P, Cassese A, Miele C, Beguinot F, Garcia-Godoy F, Di Jeso B, Ulianich L. Cytotoxicity of dental