Comparison of the Cytotoxic Effect of 3D-Printed Resins, Resin-based CAD/CAM blocks and Composite Resin.

Abstract

This study investigated the cytotoxic effects of 3D-printed permanent resins, resin-based CAD/CAM blocks and composite resin on human gingival fibroblast (HGF-1) and mouse fibroblast (L929) cell line. 3D-printed permanent resins (Crowntec and Permanent Crown), resin-based CAD/CAM blocks (Vita Enamic and Brilliant Crios) and composite resin (Clearfill Majesty Posterior) were used in the study. Samples were prepared from the planned materials and kept in DMEM according to ISO 10993-12:2021 standard (3 cm2/ml). The cytotoxic effect of the materials on HGF-1 and L929 cells was examined by MTT test at the end of 24 and 72 h. Two-way analysis of variance test (ANOVA) was used to analyze cell viability data. 3D-printed permanent resins, resin-based CAD/CAM blocks and composite resin extracts showed similar cell viability on HGF-1 and L929 cells at the end of 24 h (p>0.05). Resin-based CAD/CAM block (Vita Enamic) produced the highest cell viability on HGF-1 and L929 cells at the end of 72 h (p<0.05). Cell viability values of samples produced in 3D printers with different printing properties did not differ significantly (p>0.05). 3D-printed permanent restoration resins showed similar cell viability on HGF-1 and L929 cells to resin-based CAD/CAM blocks and composite resin. Key words:3D-printed resin, CAD/CAM block, Composite resin, Cytotoxicity, Human Gingival Fibroblast.