Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Various Composite Resin Materials: An In Vitro Study.

Aim This study aimed to determine and compare the cytotoxicity of light-cured composite resin (Enlight light cure composite (Ormco, Glendora, California, USA)), light-cured acrylic resin (Orthocryl LC (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany)), and the self-cure acrylic (DPI RR cold cure acrylic (Dental Products of India, Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd., Mumbai, India)) material and to determine which component is best to be used for the purpose of nasal stent fabrication in the nasoalveolar molding (NAM) technique for cleft therapy. Methods Circular discs made from Enlight light cure composite, Orthocryl LC, and self-cure acrylic were submerged for 24 hours in gingival fibroblast media (three discs of each material) and control medium (three discs of each material) that were both contained in plates. After analyzing the optical densities of the plates, the cytotoxicity of the products was assessed by measuring cell viability using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. The compiled data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, V. 23.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). The normality of the data was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise comparison made with Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test with a significance level (p) of 0.05 were considered. Results The percentage of cell viability was between 80% and 150%. A significant mean difference was noted in the cell viability between the three groups (p=0.009). High mean cell viability was seen in Orthocryl LC. However, there was no significant mean difference between Orthocryl LC and Enlight light cure composite material (p=0.854). Conclusion Both Orthocryl LC and Enlight light cure composite materials are less cytotoxic when compared to the self-cure acrylic resin material and can be used to fabricate the nasal stent component for infants with cleft defects, undergoing NAM procedure.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
(Copyright © 2024, Bhatia et al.)