Kilic, DuyguKesim, ServetLiman, NarinSumer, ZeynepOzturk, Ahmet2019-07-272019-07-282019-07-272019-07-2820121310-28181314-3530https://dx.doi.org/10.5504/BBEQ.2012.0030https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/9054The 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 I, 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.en10.5504/BBEQ.2012.0030info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessfibroblastMTTcytotoxityglass ionomer cementcell morphologyArticle264316231552-s2.0-84865466011Q3WOS:000307803600016Q4