Biocompatibility evaluation of orthodontic composite by real-time cell analysis

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorErsoz, M.
dc.contributor.authorMalkoc, S.
dc.contributor.authorKucuk, E. B.
dc.contributor.authorBozkurt, B. S.
dc.contributor.authorHakki, S. S.
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T19:23:12Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T19:23:12Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.departmentSelçuk Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxic effects of three different light-cured orthodontic composites. Material and methods: Light Bond (Reliance orthodontic products), Grengloo (Ormco corporation), and Kurasper F (Kuraray Europe GmbH) were selected for the experiment. Specimens were prepared according to the manufacturers' instructions, measuring 5 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Fibroblast cells were obtained from healthy gingival connective tissues. The composite cylinders were incubated in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's culture medium for 72 h according to ISO 10993-5 standards. The xCELLigence method was used to evaluate fibroblast cell vitality. After seeding 200 mL of the cell suspensions into the wells (20,000 cells/well) of the E-plate 96, gingival fibroblasts were treated with bioactive components released by the orthodontic composite materials and monitored every 15 min for 121 h. Results: There were no significant differences between the human gingival fibroblast (HGF) cell indexes of the control and all testing groups (p > 0.05) at 24 and 48 h. Light Bond demonstrated statistically significant decrease in HGF index (p < 0.05) at 72 h, but there was no significant difference among the Kurasper F, Grengloo, and untreated control groups (p > 0.05). Light Bond (p < 0.001) and Grengloo (p < 0.05) groups had lower HGF cell index values when compared to untreated control group, but Kurasper F demonstrated no significant differences between the control groups at 96 h (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Orthodontic composite materials include biologically active components and may change oral tissue. So, biocompatible orthodontic bonding composites should be used.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0960327115607944en_US
dc.identifier.endpage838en_US
dc.identifier.issn0960-3271en_US
dc.identifier.issn1477-0903en_US
dc.identifier.issue8en_US
dc.identifier.pmid26429931en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage833en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0960327115607944
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/33309
dc.identifier.volume35en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000380943600004en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSAGE PUBLICATIONS LTDen_US
dc.relation.ispartofHUMAN & EXPERIMENTAL TOXICOLOGYen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.selcuk20240510_oaigen_US
dc.subjectComposite materialsen_US
dc.subjectbiocompatibilityen_US
dc.subjecttoxicityen_US
dc.titleBiocompatibility evaluation of orthodontic composite by real-time cell analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu