@article{article_337797, title={In vitro cytotoxic evaluation of conventional denture base material and soft lining material using colorimetric MTT assay}, journal={Medical Journal of Süleyman Demirel University}, volume={25}, pages={157–166}, year={2018}, DOI={10.17343/sdutfd.337797}, author={Akay, Canan and Çakırbay Tanış, Merve}, keywords={Conventional denture base material,soft liners,cytotoxicity,thermal cycles}, abstract={<p> </p> <p style="margin:0px 0px 13px;text-align:justify;line-height:200%;"> <b> <span style="margin:0px;line-height:200%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;font-size:12pt;">Abstract </span> </b> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin:0px 0px 13px;text-align:justify;line-height:200%;"> <span style="margin:0px;line-height:200%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;font-size:12pt;">Purpose:
In this study, it was aimed to evaluate the time course of cytotoxic effects of
the conventional base material and soft lining material on the mouse fibroblast
cells. </span> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin:0px 0px 13px;text-align:justify;line-height:200%;"> <span style="margin:0px;line-height:200%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;font-size:12pt;">Material
and Method: </span> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin:0px 0px 13px;text-align:justify;line-height:200%;"> <span style="margin:0px;line-height:200%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;font-size:12pt;">Disc-shaped
test samples of denture base material (rodex) and soft lining material(
dentusil) were fabricated according to manufacturers’ instructions under
aseptic conditions. </span> <font face="Calibri" size="3"> </font> <span style="margin:0px;line-height:200%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;font-size:12pt;">The samples were subjected to 5,000
thermal cycling to mimic the oral environment. Following aging procedures, the
cytotoxic effect of the materials was assessed by [3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium
bromide] <span style="margin:0px;">  </span>assay using L929 mouse
fibroblast cells after 24 h, 48 h and 72 h cell incubation period. Cell
viability values were calculated for each group. Statistical analysis of the
data was performed using a two-way repeated measurement method. (p<0,001) </span> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin:0px 0px 13px;text-align:justify;line-height:200%;"> <span style="margin:0px;line-height:200%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;font-size:12pt;">Results: </span> <span style="margin:0px;line-height:200%;font-size:12pt;">For </span> <span style="margin:0px;line-height:200%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;font-size:12pt;">24
hours and 48 hours incubation period soft lining material, and <span style="margin:0px;">  </span>for 72 hour incubation period the base
material showed more cell viability. Statistically, there was a significant
difference between the two materials. During the incubation period, the group
incubated 24 hours is statistically different from 48 hours and 72 hours. No
significant difference was found between 72 hours and 48 hours. </span> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin:0px 0px 13px;text-align:justify;line-height:200%;"> <span style="margin:0px;line-height:200%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;font-size:12pt;">Conclusion: </span> <span style="margin:0px;line-height:200%;font-size:12pt;"> </span> <span style="margin:0px;line-height:200%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;font-size:12pt;">The soft lining
material we used under the base materials is more biocompatible than the base
material. </span> </p> <p> <b> </b> <i> </i> <u> </u> <sub> </sub> <sup> </sup> <strike> </strike> <br /> </p>}, number={2}, publisher={Süleyman Demirel University}