IADR Abstract Archives
Effects of Different Subgingival Direct Restorative Materials on the Adhesion and Proliferation of Human Gingival Fibroblasts
Objectives: To evaluate the cell adhesion as well as in vitro biocompatibility of fifteen direct restorative materials on L929 fibroblasts.
Methods: Fifteen commercial available materials including conventional glass ionomer cement (Ketac Molar Easymix, Fuji IX GP , Ionofil Molar), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitrebond, Fuji II LC), paste-like resin composite (FiltekTM Z350 XT, Gradia Direct, Grandio , Tetric N-Ceram), flowable resin composite (FiltekTM Z350 XT Flow, Gradia Direct LoFlo, Tetric N-Flow) and bulk-fill composite (Filtek Bulk Fill, x-Tra Fill, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill) were shaped for direct contact test(12mm diameter, 0.3mm thick, n=4). Direct contact cytotoxicity was evaluated using 1ml L929 mouse fibroblasts cells at 4 × 104 cells/ ml. After 24h, the adhesion, growth, morphology was assessed by scanning electron microscopy, confocal laser scanning microscope. Biocompatibility was evaluated by Counting Kit-8(CCK-8) assay, while the number of cells was counted. Statistical evaluation was assessed by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett-t test and SNK-q test (α= 0.05).
Results: Statistical difference in cell number was found in between glass ionomer cement and resin composite (P＜0.05). The cell adhesion of flowable resin composite was higher than that of paste-like and bulk-fill resin composite (P < 0.05), while the latter two groups did not differ significantly from each other (P＞0.05). Except for Ketac Molar Easymix, the other groups had adverse effects on the adhesion of L929 cells. In addition to Fuji IX GP, the other groups had different degrees of cell morphology shrinkage.
Conclusions: The cytotoxicity of glass ionomer cement was lower than that of resin composite. Furthermore, cytotoxicity of materials within the same category may vary between different brands.
Methods: Fifteen commercial available materials including conventional glass ionomer cement (Ketac Molar Easymix, Fuji IX GP , Ionofil Molar), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitrebond, Fuji II LC), paste-like resin composite (FiltekTM Z350 XT, Gradia Direct, Grandio , Tetric N-Ceram), flowable resin composite (FiltekTM Z350 XT Flow, Gradia Direct LoFlo, Tetric N-Flow) and bulk-fill composite (Filtek Bulk Fill, x-Tra Fill, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill) were shaped for direct contact test(12mm diameter, 0.3mm thick, n=4). Direct contact cytotoxicity was evaluated using 1ml L929 mouse fibroblasts cells at 4 × 104 cells/ ml. After 24h, the adhesion, growth, morphology was assessed by scanning electron microscopy, confocal laser scanning microscope. Biocompatibility was evaluated by Counting Kit-8(CCK-8) assay, while the number of cells was counted. Statistical evaluation was assessed by one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett-t test and SNK-q test (α= 0.05).
Results: Statistical difference in cell number was found in between glass ionomer cement and resin composite (P＜0.05). The cell adhesion of flowable resin composite was higher than that of paste-like and bulk-fill resin composite (P < 0.05), while the latter two groups did not differ significantly from each other (P＞0.05). Except for Ketac Molar Easymix, the other groups had adverse effects on the adhesion of L929 cells. In addition to Fuji IX GP, the other groups had different degrees of cell morphology shrinkage.
Conclusions: The cytotoxicity of glass ionomer cement was lower than that of resin composite. Furthermore, cytotoxicity of materials within the same category may vary between different brands.