A Comparative Study on Root Canal Repair Materials: A Cytocompatibility Assessment in L929 and MG63 Cells

<table>Relative cell viability of different materials determined by MTT assay in L929 cells upon 1-day (a), 3-day (b), 7-day (c), and 14-day (d) incubation, respectively. <svg height="13.95" id="M2" style="vertical-align:-0.1638pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 66.324997 13.95" width="66.324997" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<g transform="matrix(.012,-0,0,-.012,.062,5.525)"><path d="M471 153q-22 -15 -61 -13q-25 31 -45.5 49.5t-56.5 41.5q4 -71 28 -134q-17 -33 -42 -46q-24 12 -42 46q24 63 28 134q-36 -23 -56.5 -41.5t-45.5 -49.5q-36 -2 -61 13q0 28 19 59q65 10 130 43q-65 33 -130 43q-19 31 -19 59q22 15 61 13q25 -31 45.5 -49.5t56.5 -41.5
q-4 71 -28 134q17 33 42 46q24 -12 42 -46q-24 -63 -28 -134q36 23 56.5 41.5t45.5 49.5q36 2 61 -13q0 -28 -19 -59q-65 -10 -130 -43q65 -33 130 -43q19 -31 19 -59z" id="x2217"></path></g>
<g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,7.675,13.688)"><path d="M619 482q0 -69 -40.5 -119t-96 -72.5t-118.5 -26.5h-44l-70 20l-31 -151q-14 -67 0.5 -83t89.5 -22l-5 -28h-287l8 28q65 7 81.5 22t29.5 83l79 398q12 56 0.5 70.5t-78.5 20.5l7 28h255q108 0 164 -43t56 -125zM524 478q0 141 -146 141q-25 0 -47 -8q-16 -6 -20.5 -13.5
t-10.5 -39.5l-43 -241q37 -13 83 -13q67 0 125.5 45t58.5 129z" id="x1D443"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,23.195,13.688)"><path d="M512 -3l-437 233v51l437 233v-58l-378 -200v-2l378 -199v-58z" id="x3C"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,37.899,13.688)"><path d="M241 635q53 0 94 -28.5t63.5 -76t33.5 -102.5t11 -116q0 -58 -11 -112.5t-34 -103.5t-63.5 -78.5t-94.5 -29.5t-95 28t-64.5 75t-34.5 102.5t-11 118.5q0 58 11.5 112.5t34.5 103t64.5 78t95.5 29.5zM238 602q-32 0 -55.5 -25t-35.5 -68t-17.5 -91t-5.5 -105
q0 -76 10 -138.5t37 -107.5t69 -45q32 0 55.5 25t35.5 68.5t17.5 91.5t5.5 105t-5.5 105.5t-18 92t-36 68t-56.5 24.5z" id="x30"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,46.058,13.688)"><path d="M113 -12q-24 0 -39.5 16t-15.5 42q0 24 16 40.5t40 16.5t40 -16.5t16 -40.5q0 -26 -16 -42t-41 -16z" id="x2E"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,49.934,13.688)"><path d="M241 635q53 0 94 -28.5t63.5 -76t33.5 -102.5t11 -116q0 -58 -11 -112.5t-34 -103.5t-63.5 -78.5t-94.5 -29.5t-95 28t-64.5 75t-34.5 102.5t-11 118.5q0 58 11.5 112.5t34.5 103t64.5 78t95.5 29.5zM238 602q-32 0 -55.5 -25t-35.5 -68t-17.5 -91t-5.5 -105
q0 -76 10 -138.5t37 -107.5t69 -45q32 0 55.5 25t35.5 68.5t17.5 91.5t5.5 105t-5.5 105.5t-18 92t-36 68t-56.5 24.5z" id="x30"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,58.093,13.688)"><path d="M153 550l-26 -186q79 31 111 31q90 0 141.5 -51t51.5 -119q0 -93 -89 -166q-85 -69 -173 -71q-32 0 -61.5 11.5t-41.5 23.5q-18 17 -17 34q2 16 22 33q14 9 26 -1q61 -50 124 -50q60 0 93 43.5t33 104.5q0 69 -41.5 110t-121.5 41q-53 0 -102 -20l38 305h286l6 -8
l-26 -65h-233z" id="x35"></path></g>
</svg>.</table>

The Scientific World Journal

fig2

Figure 2

Figure 2: A Comparative Study on Root Canal Repair Materials: A Cytocompatibility Assessment in L929 and MG63 Cells 