{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03984575835475578, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01992287917737789, 'mean_word_length': 5.433884297520661, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In Vitro Comparison of the Effects of Dental Filling Materials on Mouse Fibroblasts

ABSTRACT The 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 1, 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.