Evaluation of bioactive restorative materials on cell viability using direct and extract methods
Brazilian Oral Research, cilt.40, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 40
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2026.vol40.017
- Dergi Adı: Brazilian Oral Research
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, MEDLINE, Directory of Open Access Journals, Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate Edition (EBSCO)
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Compomers, Composite Resins, Descriptors: Cell Surviveal
- Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
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.