Evaluation of bioactive restorative materials on cell viability using direct and extract methods.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Brazilian oral research Pub Date : 2026-03-30 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2026.vol40.017
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.

采用直接法和提取法评价生物活性修复材料对细胞活力的影响。
牙龈成纤维细胞对修复材料的生物学反应是决定临床成功的关键因素。本研究旨在利用直接提取法的实时细胞分析系统评估四种修复材料对牙龈成纤维细胞培养活力的影响。本研究使用了四种不同的具有生物活性的修复材料:Glasiosite (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven,德国),BEAUTIFIL-Bulk restorative (Shofu Inc,京都,日本),EQUIA Forte™HT Fil (GC Corporation,东京,日本)和Activa bioactive restorative®(Pulpdent Corporation, Watertown,美国)。每个材料组制备盘状试样(每种试验方法n = 18, n = 9)。采用实时细胞分析系统(xCELLigence)在24 h和48 h两个不同时间段,采用直接法和提取法测定材料对牙龈成纤维细胞活力的影响。所有统计分析均采用α = 0.05的显著性水平。对照组细胞活力最高,24 h和48 h各组间差异均有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。在24 h和48 h时,Glasiosite的细胞活力最高,而BEAUTIFIL-Bulk Restorative的细胞活力最低(p < 0.05)。除对照外,提取法在所有材料中的细胞存活率均显著高于直接接触法(p < 0.05)。本研究发现,细胞活力随材料类型、暴露时间和测试方法的不同而显著变化。Glasiosite的生物相容性最高,而BEAUTIFIL-Bulk Restorative的生物相容性最低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书