ZEHRA SUSGUN YILDIRIM, SEDA SUSGUN, SEZEN ATASOY
Journal of Clinical Trials and Experimental Investigations - 2023;2(3):144-152
Objective: Nowadays, bulk-fill composites are frequently used to restore posterior teeth. Herein, we aimed to asses the cytotoxicity of two bulk-fill composites (SDR Plus and ACTIVA BioActive-Restorative) in terms of thickness and curing device by comparing them with conventional composite (G-aenial Posterior). Materials and methods: Bulk-fill composites were prepared as 4 mm layers and cured by different generation curing units; Elipar FreeLight 2 and VALO. After polymerization, 4 mm composites were divided into two by transparent strips between the layers. Each group contained six samples as total 30 samples. The samples were incubated with the cell culture medium to obtain eluates for 1, 3, and 7 days. After incubation times, eluates were added to human healthy fibroblast cells (CCD-1079Sk) for 24 and 48 hours, and cellular viability was measured through MTT method. Results: In all conditions, SDR has shown the least cytotoxicity, followed by GC and ACT, respectively (cell viability; SDR>GC>ACT). Additionally, cell viability was increased over time (as 1, 3, and 7 days), and was decreased as the thickness increased. While bulk-fill resins were not affected by curing device, 3rd generation LED was better for GC. Conclusions: Cytotoxicity of bulk-fill composites could alter by preparation methods. This study shows that thickness may be increased cytotoxicity for all resins, while the light source is not very effective.
