{"title":"比较两种含氟溶液和两种树脂基修复材料的细胞相容性--试点研究","authors":"R. Mulder, N. Noordien, N. Potgieter","doi":"10.3389/froh.2024.1330944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Cytocompatibility should always be considered, especially if the surface of treated carious lesions is close to soft tissue or is accidentally exposed to the oral soft tissue by the clinician. Methods The aim of the present study was to compare the cytocompatibility of two fluoride-containing liquids and two resin-containing restorative materials with buccal mucosa fibroblasts. The fluoride-containing materials were silver diamine fluoride and water-based silver fluoride. Results The statistical analysis was completed by comparing the positive control growth of the buccal mucosa fibroblasts to the growth of cells exposed to various materials. The one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD result was completed. All the assessed materials compared to the control wells for both the 24 and 48 h time intervals indicated a significant cytocompatibility result, except for the test wells with Stela (SDI) at the 24 h time interval. There was no significant difference between the step 2 liquids and the two dental materials in cytocompatibility at the 24 h interval. All four materials indicated no significant differences between the cytocompatibility of any dental materials for 48 h. Conclusion The cytocompatibility assessment for Riva Star and Riva Star Aqua with the direct method in a full dispensing drop is not viable for step 1 of the fluoride-containing liquids. The use of Stela Light Cure is a suitable material that will be in contact with buccal mucosa as it showed potential for increased cytocompatibility compared to Riva Light Cure. Riva Star Aqua is more cytocompatible than Riva Star.","PeriodicalId":94016,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in oral health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing cytocompatibility of two fluoride-containing solutions and two resin-based restorative materials—a pilot study\",\"authors\":\"R. Mulder, N. Noordien, N. Potgieter\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/froh.2024.1330944\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Cytocompatibility should always be considered, especially if the surface of treated carious lesions is close to soft tissue or is accidentally exposed to the oral soft tissue by the clinician. Methods The aim of the present study was to compare the cytocompatibility of two fluoride-containing liquids and two resin-containing restorative materials with buccal mucosa fibroblasts. The fluoride-containing materials were silver diamine fluoride and water-based silver fluoride. Results The statistical analysis was completed by comparing the positive control growth of the buccal mucosa fibroblasts to the growth of cells exposed to various materials. The one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD result was completed. All the assessed materials compared to the control wells for both the 24 and 48 h time intervals indicated a significant cytocompatibility result, except for the test wells with Stela (SDI) at the 24 h time interval. There was no significant difference between the step 2 liquids and the two dental materials in cytocompatibility at the 24 h interval. All four materials indicated no significant differences between the cytocompatibility of any dental materials for 48 h. Conclusion The cytocompatibility assessment for Riva Star and Riva Star Aqua with the direct method in a full dispensing drop is not viable for step 1 of the fluoride-containing liquids. The use of Stela Light Cure is a suitable material that will be in contact with buccal mucosa as it showed potential for increased cytocompatibility compared to Riva Light Cure. Riva Star Aqua is more cytocompatible than Riva Star.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in oral health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in oral health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2024.1330944\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in oral health","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2024.1330944","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景 应始终考虑细胞相容性问题,尤其是当治疗过的龋坏表面接近软组织或临床医生不小心将其暴露于口腔软组织时。方法 本研究旨在比较两种含氟液体和两种含树脂修复材料与颊粘膜成纤维细胞的细胞相容性。含氟材料是二胺氟化银和水基氟化银。结果 通过比较颊粘膜成纤维细胞生长的阳性对照和暴露于各种材料的细胞的生长情况,完成了统计分析。结果采用单因素方差分析和 Tukey's HSD。除了在 24 小时时间间隔内使用 Stela(SDI)的测试孔外,在 24 小时和 48 小时时间间隔内与对照孔进行比较的所有评估材料都显示出显著的细胞相容性结果。第 2 步液体和两种牙科材料的细胞相容性在 24 小时间隔内没有明显差异。所有四种材料在 48 小时内的细胞相容性均无明显差异。结论 在含氟液体的第 1 步中,采用直接滴注法对 Riva Star 和 Riva Star Aqua 进行细胞相容性评估是不可行的。与 Riva Light Cure 相比,Stela Light Cure 显示出更强的细胞相容性,因此是一种适合与颊粘膜接触的材料。与 Riva Star 相比,Riva Star Aqua 的细胞相容性更好。
Comparing cytocompatibility of two fluoride-containing solutions and two resin-based restorative materials—a pilot study
Background Cytocompatibility should always be considered, especially if the surface of treated carious lesions is close to soft tissue or is accidentally exposed to the oral soft tissue by the clinician. Methods The aim of the present study was to compare the cytocompatibility of two fluoride-containing liquids and two resin-containing restorative materials with buccal mucosa fibroblasts. The fluoride-containing materials were silver diamine fluoride and water-based silver fluoride. Results The statistical analysis was completed by comparing the positive control growth of the buccal mucosa fibroblasts to the growth of cells exposed to various materials. The one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD result was completed. All the assessed materials compared to the control wells for both the 24 and 48 h time intervals indicated a significant cytocompatibility result, except for the test wells with Stela (SDI) at the 24 h time interval. There was no significant difference between the step 2 liquids and the two dental materials in cytocompatibility at the 24 h interval. All four materials indicated no significant differences between the cytocompatibility of any dental materials for 48 h. Conclusion The cytocompatibility assessment for Riva Star and Riva Star Aqua with the direct method in a full dispensing drop is not viable for step 1 of the fluoride-containing liquids. The use of Stela Light Cure is a suitable material that will be in contact with buccal mucosa as it showed potential for increased cytocompatibility compared to Riva Light Cure. Riva Star Aqua is more cytocompatible than Riva Star.