Q2. What are the contributions in "In vitro cytotoxicity evaluation of a novel root repair material" ?
This study examined the effect of a new bioactive dentin substitute material ( Biodentine ) on the viability of human gingival fibroblasts.
Q3. How many wells were used to prepare the cells?
After setting, the disks were exposed to ultraviolet light for 20 minutes on each surface to ensure sterility and transferred into 24- well tissue culture plates containing 1 mL DMEM per well.
Q4. How long did the fibroblasts survive on the GIC surface?
some fibroblasts eventually spread and survived on the GIC surface after incubation for 7 days, suggesting that over time, cells can overcome a low cytotoxic effect of GIC Fuji IX.
Q5. What was used as the cell culture medium?
Dulbecco modified Eagle medium (DMEM) (Gibco, Grand Island, NY) supplemented with 100 mg/mL penicillin G, 50 mg/mL streptomycin, 0.25 mg/mL Fungizone, and 10% fetal bovine serum (Gibco) was used as the cell culture medium.
Q6. How many days did the cells incubate?
Cells were plated at a density of 5000 cells/cm2 in a 24-well plate and incubated with or without different concentrations of extracts diluted in DMEM for 1, 3, and 7 days.
Q7. How long did the cytotoxicity assay take?
Specimens for SEM examination were prefixed with phosphatebuffered 2.5% glutaraldehyde (Sigma-Aldrich) for 30 minutes before further fixation in 1% osmium tetroxide (OsO4) for 1 hour.
Q8. How long did the disks remain in the culture medium?
In groups C–E, the disks were incubated in DMEM culture medium for 7 days and then seeded with gingival fibroblasts (5 104 cells/well with 1 mL DMEM) for 1 day (group C), 3 days (group D), and 7 days (group E), respectively.
Q9. What are the disadvantages of bioceramic cements?
there are some drawbacks associated with the use of the bioceramic cements including long setting time, difficult manipulation, limited resistance to washout before setting, and possibility of staining of tooth structure (4–6, 14).
Q10. How many cells were seen on the surface of the GIC?
After both 3 days and 7 days of incubation (Fig. 3H and I), fibroblasts showed a more spread cell morphology as compared with the earlier time point, but the cells were only sparsely distributed over the GIC surface and appeared to display only few cell-cell contacts.
Q11. What was the cell viability of the extracts of Biodentine?
Biodentine showed an uneven crystalline surface structure after incubation in water or DMEM (Fig. 2A and B, respectively), whereas MTA showed the typical structure of calcium silicate hydrated gel on the surface of the crystals (Fig. 2C and D).
Q12. What is the way to evaluate the biocompatible properties of MTA?
a calciumIn Vitro Cytotoxicity Evaluation of a Novel Root Repair Material 481silicate–basedmaterial, is the gold standard bioceramic cement that has been extensively studied and recognized as a bioactive and biocompatible material.
Q13. What was the cell viability of the cells exposed to GIC?
After culturing for 1 day, cells incubated with extracts from Biodentine and MTA showed the highest viabilities at all extract concentrations, whereas cells exposed to GIC extracts displayed the lowest viabilities (P < .001).
Q14. What is the reason for the poor initial spreading of fibroblasts on the GIC surfaces?
it is likely that the poor initial spreading of fibroblasts on the GIC surfaces compared with Biodentine or MTA was caused by leaching of substances and/or other surface properties that adversely affect cell interactions with the material.