## 2 Materials and Methods
### Cell Viability  
The morphology of DPSCs was examined using a conventional optical microscope (LX-51, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), and the viability of the DPSCs from each culture group was evaluated on days 1, 3, and 7. For the 2D groups, the subculture of DPSCs that were on a 2D 24-well plate were cultured with different cement eluates. The cement eluate medium was refreshed every two days. The viability of the DPSCs was measured using the Cell Counting kit-8 (CCK-8, Dojindo, Tokyo, Japan) assay on days 1, 3, and 7. For this, 2.2 mL of CCK-8 solution was diluted at a 1:10 ratio with a basal medium and allowed to rest for 4 h. Next, 10 \(\upmu\)L of the diluted solution was added to each well of a 2D 96-well plate. Each eluate was assessed in triplicate. The plate was wrapped in aluminum foil to prevent light exposure, and the absorbance was measured at 450 nm using a SpectraMax ELISA reader (Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). The average absorbance of each set of three wells was considered for the statistical calculations. For the ULA groups, the subculture of DPSCs that were on a ULA 96-well plate were cultured with each cement eluate. The cement eluate medium was refreshed once every two days. The viability of the DPSCs was measured using the CellTiter-Glo (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) assay on days 1, 3, and 7. For this, 100 \(\upmu\)L of CellTiter-Glo reagent was added to each of the 96 wells. Each eluate was assessed in triplicate. The plate was shaken at a constant speed for 30 min to induce cell lysis. After this, the contents of the wells were transferred to a 96-well white plate and the luminescence was measured using a SpectraMax ELISA reader (Molecular Devices). The average absorbance of each set of wells was considered for the statistical calculations.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Product Name** & **Manufacturer** & **Chemical Composition** \\ \hline IRM & \begin{tabular}{c} Intermediate \\ Restorative Material \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Dentsply Sirona, \\ Tulsa, OK, USA \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Powder: zinc oxide (75\%), \\ polymethacrylate (20\%) \\ Liquid: eugenol (99\%), acetic acid \\ (less than 1\%) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline PRM & ProRoot MTA & \begin{tabular}{c} Dentsply Sirona, \\ Tulsa, OK, USA \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Powder: tricalcium silicate, \\ delacium silicate, bismuth oxide, \\ calcium sulfate, gypsum \\ Liquid: distilled water \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline BIO & \begin{tabular}{c} Biodentine \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Septodont, Saint \\ Maur des Fausse, \\ France \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Powder: tricalcium silicate, \\ delacium silicate, zirconium oxide, \\ calcium carbonate, \\ dihydrate or gypsum \\ Liquid: distilled water, hydrosoluble \\ polymer, calcium chloride \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline WRP & Well-Root PT & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Vericom, Chuncheon, \\ Korea \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Tricalcium silicate, \\ zirconium oxide, polyethylene \\ glycol, polypropylene glycol, \\ calcium sulfate dihydrate \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Materials used in this study.