Effect of Three Different Filling Materials on Fibroblast Attachment:In vitro Evaluation

Volume: 21 Number: 2 June 1, 2012
  • Duygu Kılıç
  • Servet Kesim
  • Zeynep Sümer
  • Ahmet Öztürk
EN TR

Effect of Three Different Filling Materials on Fibroblast Attachment:In vitro Evaluation

Abstract

In this in vitro study, the effects of glass ionomer cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement and polyacid modified resin composite used in clinical practice on gingival fibroblast cells were investigated. For MTT test, the substructures of three different filling materials’ were incubated with gingival fibroblast cells for 24 and 72 hours. In MTT test analysis, fibroblast attachment on poliacid modified resin composite filling material was excessive after 24 hours but decreased after 72 hours (p<0,05). Fibroblast attachment on resin modified glass ionomer cement was lower than other filling materials after 72 hours. When cell proliferation percentages of all filling materials were compared with control group (glass) after 24, 72 hours, it was observed that difference was statistically significant (p>0,05). In addition to our in vitro research results, the chemical surface analysis techniques, measurement of release of elements and physical surface characterization and analysis of microstructure and porosity can provide a better understanding of the biological response of filling materials

Keywords

References

  1. Dragoo MR. Resin-ionomer and hybrid- ionomer cements: part II, human clinical and histologic wound healing responses in specific periodontal lesions. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997; 17(1): 75-87.
  2. SO 10993 part 5, 1999. International Standard 10993 “Biological evaluation of medical devices Part 5: Tests for cytotoxicity: In-vitro methods.” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999 13. Souza NJ, Justo GZ, Oliveira CR, Haun M, Bincoletto C. Cytotoxicity of materials used in perforation repair tested using the V79 fibroblast cell line andthe granulocyte- macrophage progenitor cells. Int. Endod. J. 2006; 39: 40-47.
  3. Al-Qathami H, Balto H, Al-Nazhan S, Siddiqui Y. Effect of root perforation repair materials on morphology and attachment behaviour of human PDL fibroblasts invitro. Saudi Dental Journal, 2004; 16: 113-117. 15. Schmalz G. Use of cell cultures for toxicity testing of demtal materials. Advantages and limitations. J Dent. 1994; 2: 6-11. 16. Sidhu SK, Schmalz G. The biocompatibility of glass ionomer cement materials. A status report fort he African Journal of Dentistry. Am. J. Dent. 2001; 14: 387-396.
  4. Pourabbas R, Chitsazi MT, Kosarieh E, Olyaee P. Coronally advanced flap in combination with acellular dermal matrix with or without enamel matrix derivatives for root coverage. Indian J Dent Res. 2009; 20(3): 320-5. 18. Raffaelli L, Rossi Iommetti P, Piccioni E,et al. Growth, viability, adhesion potential, and fibronectin expression in fibroblasts cultured on zirconia or feldspatic ceramics in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008; 86 (4): 959-68.
  5. Mosmann T. Rapit colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J. Immunol. Meth. 1983; 65: 55-63. 20. Huang FM, Tai KW, Chou My, Chang YC. Resinous perforation-repair materials inhibit the growth, attachment, and proliferation of human gingival fibroblasts. J. Endod. 2002; 28: 291-294.
  6. Al-Sabek F, Shostad S, Kirkwood KL. Preferential attachment of human gingival fibroblasts to the resin ionomer Geristore. J. Endod. 2005; 31: 205-208.
  7. Camp MA, Jeansonne BG, Lallier T. Adhesion of human fibroblasts to root-and- filling materials. J. Endod. 2003; 29: 602- 607.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

-

Journal Section

-

Authors

Duygu Kılıç This is me

Servet Kesim This is me

Zeynep Sümer This is me

Ahmet Öztürk This is me

Publication Date

June 1, 2012

Submission Date

June 1, 2012

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 2012 Volume: 21 Number: 2

APA
Kılıç, D., Kesim, S., Sümer, Z., & Öztürk, A. (2012). ÜÇ FARKLI DOLGU MATERYALİNİN FİBROBLAST ATAŞMANINA ETKİSİNİN İN VİTRO OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 21(2), 87-94. https://izlik.org/JA69DA25TZ
AMA
1.Kılıç D, Kesim S, Sümer Z, Öztürk A. ÜÇ FARKLI DOLGU MATERYALİNİN FİBROBLAST ATAŞMANINA ETKİSİNİN İN VİTRO OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2012;21(2):87-94. https://izlik.org/JA69DA25TZ
Chicago
Kılıç, Duygu, Servet Kesim, Zeynep Sümer, and Ahmet Öztürk. 2012. “ÜÇ FARKLI DOLGU MATERYALİNİN FİBROBLAST ATAŞMANINA ETKİSİNİN İN VİTRO OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ”. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 21 (2): 87-94. https://izlik.org/JA69DA25TZ.
EndNote
Kılıç D, Kesim S, Sümer Z, Öztürk A (June 1, 2012) ÜÇ FARKLI DOLGU MATERYALİNİN FİBROBLAST ATAŞMANINA ETKİSİNİN İN VİTRO OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 21 2 87–94.
IEEE
[1]D. Kılıç, S. Kesim, Z. Sümer, and A. Öztürk, “ÜÇ FARKLI DOLGU MATERYALİNİN FİBROBLAST ATAŞMANINA ETKİSİNİN İN VİTRO OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ”, Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 87–94, June 2012, [Online]. Available: https://izlik.org/JA69DA25TZ
ISNAD
Kılıç, Duygu - Kesim, Servet - Sümer, Zeynep - Öztürk, Ahmet. “ÜÇ FARKLI DOLGU MATERYALİNİN FİBROBLAST ATAŞMANINA ETKİSİNİN İN VİTRO OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ”. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 21/2 (June 1, 2012): 87-94. https://izlik.org/JA69DA25TZ.
JAMA
1.Kılıç D, Kesim S, Sümer Z, Öztürk A. ÜÇ FARKLI DOLGU MATERYALİNİN FİBROBLAST ATAŞMANINA ETKİSİNİN İN VİTRO OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2012;21:87–94.
MLA
Kılıç, Duygu, et al. “ÜÇ FARKLI DOLGU MATERYALİNİN FİBROBLAST ATAŞMANINA ETKİSİNİN İN VİTRO OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ”. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 21, no. 2, June 2012, pp. 87-94, https://izlik.org/JA69DA25TZ.
Vancouver
1.Duygu Kılıç, Servet Kesim, Zeynep Sümer, Ahmet Öztürk. ÜÇ FARKLI DOLGU MATERYALİNİN FİBROBLAST ATAŞMANINA ETKİSİNİN İN VİTRO OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi [Internet]. 2012 Jun. 1;21(2):87-94. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA69DA25TZ