English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The study was done to compare cell viability between ES-D3 and Balb/c 3T3 cells, and evaluate the difference in cell viability between these cell lines using denture-base lining materials for prosthetic dentistry. To compare the cytotoxicity, three acrylic and three silicone dental materials were used. The cell viability was examined by MTT and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) methods. The cell viability immediately after malaxation or light irradiation was lower only for the acrylic materials in 3T3 cells, and for both silicone and acrylic materials in ES-D3 cells. However, the cell viability determined 24 h after malaxation or light irradiation by the MTT and LDH methods did not significantly differ between samples. It was observed that ES-D3 cells are more sensitive depending on the type of material. The results suggest that ES-D3 cells can be used as in vitro systems for conducting biosafety assessment to predict embryotoxicity.

Comparison of cell viability between mouse-derived ES-D3 cells and Balb/c 3T3 cells using denture-base lining materials