Ulker, Ulker, Zortuk, Bulbul, Tuncdemir, Bilgin was cytotoxic for cells when compared to control for cells (Figure 2a-b). On the hand Protemp 3 group and other tested materials (P<.05). Garant, the other bis-acryl based provisional material, was not cytotoxic for L929 fibroblast dISCuSSIoN cells (Figure 2c). Interestingly slightly increased The literature contains descriptions of cell- cell vitality was observed with Protemp 3 Garant culture tests with various cell types to establish (101%). Differences in cytotoxicity can be partly cell damage caused by dental materials.17 In the attributed to differences in chemical composition. present study the effect of two bis-acryl and one Protemp Garant has been modified and marketed urethane dimethacrylate based commercially as Protemp 3 Garant. The modifications include available provisional restoration materials on a newly developed monomer system, not with fibroblast cells were investigated by MTT test. the rigid intermediate chain characteristic of Fibroblasts are the targets of any chemical some bis-GMA homologues, but with a somewhat components that may be released from the dental flexible chain in comparison to other synthetic restorative materials. L929 fibroblast cells were resins (ESPE Technical Product Profile). This selected due to its availability, popularity and modification in the monomer system may limit the efficiency to grow in vitro.18 MTT assay is a well- cytotoxic potential of the material. established method for analyzing cell viability.16 However, manufacturer of Tempofit duomix do The viability and proliferation of the cells are not state any difference in monomer formulation. assessed by means of the functional state of the Probably as most other bis-acryl based provisional cell mitochondria.19 Mitochondrial dehydrogenases materials, the organic polymer matrix of Tempofit in living cells reduce the yellow tetrazolium salt, duomix is composed of traditional monomers such MTT (3-(4,5-dimethyl) thiazol-2-yl) 2,5 diphenyl- as Bis-GMA, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate tetrazolium bromide) to blue MTT formazan, (TEGDMA) or similar monomer systems. But which is then retained in the cell. Formation of one must keep in mind that resin materials the formazan product has been found to correlate may contain rather ‘unknown’ monomers and well with number of viable cells.8,19,20 generally these monomers protect by patents. Today, bis-acryl composites possess Patents may also hinder objective research.23 Only considerable amount of the market share for tooth available composition of the resin cements tested colored provisional material. Main advantages of in this study. They may also contain such unknown bis-acryl provisional materials include a lower monomers. curing temperature, reduced polymerization Current investigations reported the cytotoxic shrinkage (5%) with improved marginal fit, and effects of some resin monomers, such as BIS-GMA, minimal odour and taste.13,21 The low setting temperature of these materials allows them to be used directly with decreased risk of pulpal injury.22 In addition, bis-acryls are gaining in popularity, in part because of their cartridge delivery system. This dispensary method not only is convenient but also may allow for a more accurate and consistent mix.21 Dental practitioners have clearly welcomed these products and very limited data can be available about their cytotoxicity and biocompatibility. In present study, two of the tested provisional restoration material was bis-acryl based which are chemically very similar to bisphenol-A-glycidyl Figure 2. Effects of provisional materials on L-929 fibroblasts: methacrylate (Bis-GMA) composites. According to (a) control group (Original culture medium), (b) culture medium our results, eluates from Tempofit duomix lead to ccoonnttaaiinniinngg mmaatteerriiaall eexxttrraaccttssooffTePmroptoefmit,p(c3) cGualrtuanret manedd,iu(md) 88% cell survival and when compared to control culture medium containing material extracts of Revotek. Cells group and other tested materials it was cytotoxic were incubated with these mediums for 24 hours (x10). April 2009 - Vol.3 117 European Journal of Dentistry