BMC oral health · 2025
In vitro assessment of cytotoxic, genotoxic, and antimicrobial properties of pediatric restorative dental materials.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kaplan Ceren, Secerli Jülide, Şavluk Merve, Akgün Özlem Martı, Güdül Bacanli Merve, Ünal Nilgün
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of three glass ionomer-based restorative materials and one alkasite material on murine fibroblast cells (L929). Additionally, their antibacterial activities against two prominent oral pathogens were investigated.
METHODS: The tested materials included ChemFil Rock (Dentsply Sirona, Germany), EQUIA Forte HT Fil (GC, Japan), Ruby Liner (Rubydent, Turkey), and the alkasite material Cention Forte (Ivoclar Vivadent, Switzerland). Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity were assessed using the L929 fibroblast cell line through MTT and comet assays. Antibacterial properties against Streptococcus mutans and Enterococcus faecalis were determined using the agar diffusion method. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc test (GraphPad Prism v5.03). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.0001 for cytotoxicity and p < 0.05 for genotoxicity.
RESULTS: All tested materials exhibited cytotoxic and genotoxic effects on L929 cells, with no statistically significant differences among the groups. None of the materials demonstrated antibacterial activity, as indicated by the absence of inhibition zones against both S. mutans and E. faecalis.
CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated glass ionomer-based and alkasite restorative materials induced significant cytotoxic and genotoxic responses in vitro but showed no antibacterial efficacy. These findings underline the necessity for further in vivo investigations to determine their clinical safety and long-term biocompatibility.
METHODS: The tested materials included ChemFil Rock (Dentsply Sirona, Germany), EQUIA Forte HT Fil (GC, Japan), Ruby Liner (Rubydent, Turkey), and the alkasite material Cention Forte (Ivoclar Vivadent, Switzerland). Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity were assessed using the L929 fibroblast cell line through MTT and comet assays. Antibacterial properties against Streptococcus mutans and Enterococcus faecalis were determined using the agar diffusion method. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc test (GraphPad Prism v5.03). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.0001 for cytotoxicity and p < 0.05 for genotoxicity.
RESULTS: All tested materials exhibited cytotoxic and genotoxic effects on L929 cells, with no statistically significant differences among the groups. None of the materials demonstrated antibacterial activity, as indicated by the absence of inhibition zones against both S. mutans and E. faecalis.
CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated glass ionomer-based and alkasite restorative materials induced significant cytotoxic and genotoxic responses in vitro but showed no antibacterial efficacy. These findings underline the necessity for further in vivo investigations to determine their clinical safety and long-term biocompatibility.