Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKilic, Duygu
dc.contributor.authorKesim, Servet
dc.contributor.authorLiman, Narin
dc.contributor.authorSumer, Zeynep
dc.contributor.authorOzturk, Ahmet
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-28T10:03:30Z
dc.date.available2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.available2019-07-28T10:03:30Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.issn1310-2818
dc.identifier.issn1314-3530
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.5504/BBEQ.2012.0030
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/9054
dc.descriptionWOS: 000307803600016en_US
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipResearch Fund for PhD theses, Erciyes University, Turkey [B-591]en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was supported by grant B-591 from the Research Fund for PhD theses, Erciyes University, Turkey.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTAYLOR & FRANCIS LTDen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.5504/BBEQ.2012.0030en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectfibroblasten_US
dc.subjectMTTen_US
dc.subjectcytotoxityen_US
dc.subjectglass ionomer cementen_US
dc.subjectcell morphologyen_US
dc.titleIN VITRO COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF DENTAL FILLING MATERIALS ON MOUSE FIBROBLASTSen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalBIOTECHNOLOGY & BIOTECHNOLOGICAL EQUIPMENTen_US
dc.contributor.department[Kesim, Servet] Erciyes Univ, Fac Dent, Kayseri, Turkey -- [Liman, Narin] Erciyes Univ, Fac Vet Med, Kayseri, Turkey -- [Sumer, Zeynep] Cumhuriyet Univ, Fac Med, Sivas, Turkey -- [Ozturk, Ahmet] Erciyes Univ, Fac Med, Kayseri, Turkeyen_US
dc.contributor.authorIDOzturk, Ahmet -- 0000-0002-7130-5624en_US
dc.identifier.volume26en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.endpage3162en_US
dc.identifier.startpage3155en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record