Zeynep Ekin Kilinc, Vahdi Umut Bengi, Selcuk Savas, Ebru Kucukyilmaz
{"title":"Evaluation of bioactive restorative materials on cell viability using direct and extract methods.","authors":"Zeynep Ekin Kilinc, Vahdi Umut Bengi, Selcuk Savas, Ebru Kucukyilmaz","doi":"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2026.vol40.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The biological response of gingival fibroblasts to restorative materials is a key factor in determining the clinical success. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of four restorative materials on the viability of gingival fibroblast cell cultures using a real-time cell analysis system with direct extract methods. Four different restorative materials with bioactive properties were used in this study: Glasiosite (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany), BEAUTIFIL-Bulk Restorative (Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan), EQUIA Forte™ HT Fil (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), and Activa BioACTIVE Restorative® (Pulpdent Corporation, Watertown, USA). Disc-shaped specimens were prepared for each material group (n = 18 and n = 9 for each test method). The effects of the materials on gingival fibroblast viability were determined using both direct and extract methods with a real-time cell analysis system (xCELLigence) at two different time periods (24 h and 48 h). A significance level of α = 0.05 was adopted for all statistical analyses. The control group exhibited the highest cell viability, and the differences between the groups were statistically significant at both 24 h and 48 h (p < 0.05). At both 24 h and 48 h, Glasiosite showed the highest cell viability among the tested materials, whereas the BEAUTIFIL-Bulk Restorative exhibited the lowest cell viability (p < 0.05). Cell viability was significantly higher with the extract method than with the direct contact method across all materials, except for the control (p < 0.05). This study revealed that the cell viability varied significantly depending on the material type, exposure time, and test method. Glasiosite showed the highest biocompatibility, while the BEAUTIFIL-Bulk Restorative exhibited the lowest value.</p>","PeriodicalId":9240,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian oral research","volume":"40 ","pages":"e017"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13038077/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian oral research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2026.vol40.017","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The biological response of gingival fibroblasts to restorative materials is a key factor in determining the clinical success. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of four restorative materials on the viability of gingival fibroblast cell cultures using a real-time cell analysis system with direct extract methods. Four different restorative materials with bioactive properties were used in this study: Glasiosite (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany), BEAUTIFIL-Bulk Restorative (Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan), EQUIA Forte™ HT Fil (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), and Activa BioACTIVE Restorative® (Pulpdent Corporation, Watertown, USA). Disc-shaped specimens were prepared for each material group (n = 18 and n = 9 for each test method). The effects of the materials on gingival fibroblast viability were determined using both direct and extract methods with a real-time cell analysis system (xCELLigence) at two different time periods (24 h and 48 h). A significance level of α = 0.05 was adopted for all statistical analyses. The control group exhibited the highest cell viability, and the differences between the groups were statistically significant at both 24 h and 48 h (p < 0.05). At both 24 h and 48 h, Glasiosite showed the highest cell viability among the tested materials, whereas the BEAUTIFIL-Bulk Restorative exhibited the lowest cell viability (p < 0.05). Cell viability was significantly higher with the extract method than with the direct contact method across all materials, except for the control (p < 0.05). This study revealed that the cell viability varied significantly depending on the material type, exposure time, and test method. Glasiosite showed the highest biocompatibility, while the BEAUTIFIL-Bulk Restorative exhibited the lowest value.