PURPOSE: . The effects of four different self-adhesive resin cement materials on cell viability and apoptosis after direct and indirect exposure were evaluated using different cell culture techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: . Self-adhesive cements were applied to NIH/3T3 mouse fibroblasts by the extract test method, cell culture inserts, and dentin barrier test method. After exposure periods of 24 h and 72 h, the cytotoxicity of these self-adhesive materials was evaluated using the MTT assay (viability) and the Annexin-V-FITC/PI staining (apoptosis). RESULTS: .The lowest cell viability was found in cells exposed to BeautiCem SA for 24 h in the extract test method. Cell viability was reduced to 70.6% compared to negative controls. After the 72 h exposure period, viability rate of cell cultures exposed to BeautiCem SA decreased more than 2- fold (29.5%) while cells exposed to RelyX U200 showed the highest viability rate of 71.4%. In the dentin barrier test method, BeautiCem SA induced the highest number of cells in apoptosis after a 24 h exposure (4.1%). Panavia SA Cement Plus was the material that caused the lowest number of cells in apoptosis (1.5%). CONCLUSION . The used self-adhesive cements have showed different cytotoxic effects based on the evaluation method. As exposure time increased, the materials showed more cytotoxic and apoptotic effects. BeautiCem SA caused significantly more severe cytotoxic and apoptotic effects than other cements tested. Moreover, cements other than BeautiCem SA have caused necrotic cell death rather than apoptotic cell death.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of four computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) blocks repaired with composite resin using three different surface treatment protocols.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different CAD/CAM blocks were used in this study: (1) flexible hybrid ceramic (FHC), (2) resin nanoceramic (RNC), (c) polymer infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) and (4) feldspar ceramic (FC). All groups were further divided into four subgroups according to surface treatment: control, hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), air-borne particle abrasion with aluminum oxide (AlO), and tribochemical silica coating (TSC). After surface treatments, silane was applied to half of the specimens. Then, a silane-containing universal adhesive was applied, and specimens were repaired with a composite, Next, μSBS test was performed. Additional specimens were examined with a contact profilometer and scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey tests.RESULTS: The findings revealed that silane application yielded higher µSBS values (P<.05). All surface treatments were showed a significant increase in µSBS values compared to the control (P<.05). For FHC and RNC, the most influential treatments were AlO and TSC (P<.05).CONCLUSION: Surface treatment is mandatory when the silane is not preferred, but the best bond strength values were obtained with the combination of surface treatment and silane application. HF provides improved bond strength when the ceramic content of material increases, whereas AlO and TSC gives improved bond strength when the composite content of material increases.
Adhesives ; Aluminum Oxide ; Ceramics ; Clinical Protocols ; Dental Bonding ; Dental Restoration Repair ; Hydrofluoric Acid ; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning ; Polymers ; Shear Strength ; Silicon Dioxide