1. Özyurt E. Güncel Rezin Kompozit Materyallerin Fiziksel ve OptikÖzelliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Selcuk Dental Journal. 2023; 10(1):7-11.
2. Çelik Ç., Özel Y. Rezin Restoratif Materyallerin PolimerizasyonundaKullanılan Işık Kaynakları. ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi. 2008; 2(2):109-115.
3. Süsgün Yıldırım Z. et al. Diş Hekimliğinde Biyouyumluluk veDeğerlendirme Yöntemleri. Selcuk Dental Journal. 2017; 4(3):162-169.
4. Şişman R, Aksoy A, Yalçın M, Karaöz E. Cytotoxic Effects of BulkFill Composite Resins on Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells. J Oral Sci.2016;58(3):299-305.
5. Uzun İH, Bayındır F. Dental materyallerin biyouyumluluk testyöntemleri. GÜ. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg. 2011;28(2):115-122.
6. Schmalz G. Strategies to ımprove biocompatibility of dental materials.Curr Oral Health Rep 2014;1: 222-231.
7. Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S, Matinlinna JP, Yiu CK, King NM.Biocompatibility of various dental materials in contemporary dentistry:a narrative insight. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry 2013;4: 9-19.
8. Tuncer S, Demirci M. Dental Materyallerde BiyouyumlulukDeğerlendirmeleri. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi.2011;21(2):141-149.
9. Murray PE, About I, Lumiey PJ, et al. Cavity remaning dentin thicknessand pulpal activity. Am J Dent 2002; 15: 41-46.
10. Atalayin Ozkaya C, Tezel H, Armagan G, et al. The Effects of ExtendedPolymerization Time for Different Resin Composites on the ReactiveOxygen Species Production and Cell Viability. J Oral Sci 2021; 63(1):46-49.
11. Chatzistavrou X, Lefkelidou A, Papadopoulou L, Pavlidou E,Paraskevopoulos K, Christopher Fenno J, et al. Bactericidal andBioactive Dental Composites. Front Physiol 2018; 9: 1-11.
12. Goldberg M. In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resincomponents: a review. Clin Oral Invest 2008; 12: 1-8.
13. Ertan B, Özkaya Ç. Biyouyumluluk Kavramına Restoratif Diş TedavisiÖzelinde Genel Bir Bakış. İzmir Diş Hekimleri Odası Bilimsel Dergisi2022; 2(1), 1.
14. Demir, N et al. Kendinden bağlanabilen farklı adeziv rezin simanlarınsitotoksisitelerinin in vitro olarak değerlendirilmesi. Acta OdontologicaTurcica, 2018;35(2): 44-48.
15. Schmalz G. Materials science: biological aspects. J. Dent. Res.2002;81:660-663.
16. Liu B, Gan X, Zhao Y, Tegdma releasing in resin composites withdifferent filler contents and its correlation with mitochondrial mediatedcytotoxicity in human gingival fibroblasts. J Biomed Mater Res Part A,2019;107(1):1132-1142.
17. Wataha JC, et al. In vitro biological response to core and flowable dentalrestorative materials. Dental materials, 2003;19(1):25-31.
18. Marigo L, Nocca G, Fiorenzano G, et al. Influences of different air-inhibition coatings on monomer release, microhardness, and colorstability of two composite materials. Biomed Research International,2019; Article ID 4240264.
19. Morsiya, C. A review on parameters affecting properties of biomaterialSS 316L. Australian Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2022;20(3): 803-813.
20. Tadin A. et al. Composite İnduced Toxicity in Human Gingival andPulp Fibroblast Cells. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(4):304-311.
21. Türkcan İ. , Nalbant A. D. Dental protetik materyallerin biyolojikuyumluluğu ve test yöntemleri. Acta Odontologica Turcica. 2016; 33(3):145-152.
22. Shahi S. et al. A review on potential toxicity of dental material andscreening their biocompatibility. Toxicology mechanisms and methods,2019;29(5): 368-377.
23. Atalayın Ç, Tezel H, Ergücü Z. Rezin Esaslı Dental MateryallerinSitotoksisitesine Genel Bir Bakış. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg 2016; 37(2): 47-53.
24. Geurtsen W, Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials. CritRev Oral Biol Med. 2000;11(3):333-355.
25. Annunziata M, Aversa R, Apicella A, et al. In vitro biological responseto a light-cured composite when used for cementation of compositeinlays. Dent Materials 2006; 22(12):1081-1085.
26. About I, Camps J, Burger AS, et al. Polymerized bonding agents and thedifferantiation in vitro of human pulp cells into odontoblast-like cells.Dent Mater 2005; 21(2):156-163. 2005;
27. Thonemann B, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, et al. Responses of L929 mousefibroblasts, primary and immortalized bovine dental papilla-derivedcell lines to dental resin components. Dental materials, 2002, 18: 318-323. 2002.
28. Moharamzadeh K, Brook I, Noort R, Biocompability of resin-baseddental materials. Materials 2009; 2(2): 514-548.
29. Ian H, Wang M, Wang S, et al. 3D bioprinting for cell culture and tissuefabrication. Bio-Design and Manufacturing 2018;1:45-61.
30. Murray PE, Lumley PJ, Ross HF, Smith AJ. Tooth slice organ culture forcytotoxicity assesment of dental materials. Biomaterials 2000; 21(16):1711-1721.
31. Murray P, Godoy CG, Godoy FG. How is the biocompatibility of dentalmaterials evaluated,Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007;12(11):258-266.
32. Lim S, Yap A, Loo C, et al. Comparison of cytotoxicity test models forevaluating resin-based composites. Human & experimental toxicology.2016;36(4):339-348.
33. Schmalz G, Hiller KA, Nunez LJ et al. Permeability characteristics ofbovine and human dentin under different pretreatment conditions. JEndod 2001; 27: 23-30.
34. Freshney Ian R. Culture of Animal Cells: A Manual of Basic Technique,Fifth Edition. Haboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2005; 1-216.
35. Kiliç K, Kesim B, Sümer Z, Polat Z, Öztürk A. Tam seramikmateryallerinin biyouyumluluğunun MTT testi ile incelenmesi.2010;19(2):125-132.
36. Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practitioners. JProsthet Dent. 2001;86(2):203-209.
37. Cao T, Saw TY, Heng BC, et al. Comparison of different test modelsfor the assessment of cytotoxicity of composite resins. J Appl Toxicol.2005;25(2):101-108.
38. Costa CS, Hebling J, Randall RC. Human pulp response to resincements used to bond inlay restorations. Dent Mat 2006; 22(10): 954-962.
39. Bakır, Elif Pinar, et al. Are resin-containing pulp capping materialsas reliable as traditional ones in terms of local and systemic biologicaleffects. Dent Mater J, 2022, 41.1: 78-86.
40. Manaspon C, et al. Human dental pulp stem cell responses to differentdental pulp capping materials. BMC Oral Health, 2021;21.(1):1-13.
41. Kraus D, Wolfgarten M, Enkling N, et al. In-vitro cytocompatibilityof dental resin monomers on osteoblast-like cells. J Dent 2017;65:76-82.
42. Goncalves F, etal. A comparative study of bulk-fill composites: degreeof conversion, post-gel shrinkage and cytotoxicity. Brazilian OralResearch, 2018; 32: 1-8.
43. Bandarra S, et al. Biocompatibility of self-adhesive resin cement withfibroblast cells. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021; 125(4):705.e1-705.e7.
44. Moussa H, Jones MM, Huo N, et al. Biocompatibility, mechanical, andbonding properties of a dental adhesive modified with antibacterialmonomer and cross-linker. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(5):2877-2889.
45. Brzovic Rajic V, Zeljezic D, Malcic Ivaniševic A, et al. Cytotoxicity andGenotoxicity of Resin Based Dental Materials in Human LymphocytesIn Vitro. Acta Clin Croat. 2018;57(2):278-285.
46. Gociu M, Paˆtroi D, Prejmerean C, Paˆstraˆv O, Boboia S, Prodan D,Moldovan M. Biology and cytotoxicity of dental materials: an in vitrostudy. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2013; 54(2):261-265.
47. Attik N, Hallay F, Bois L, et al. Mesoporous silica fillers and resincomposition effect on dental composi- tes cytocompatibility. DentalMaterials, 2017;33(2):166-174.
48. Taghizadehghalehjoughi A, OK E, KAMALAK H. KompozitMateryallerin Gingival Fibroblast Hücreleri Üzerindeki SitotoksikEtkisinin İncelenmesi. Turkiye Klinikleri Dishekimligi Bilimleri Dergisi,2019, 25(3): 310-318.
49. Bapat R, Parolia A, Chaubal T, et al. Recent update on potentialcytotoxicity, biocompatibility and preventive measures of biomaterialsused in dentistry. Biomater Sci 2021; 9: 3244.
50. Lee S, Kim S, Kim J, et al. Depth-dependent cellular response fromdental bulk-fill resins in human dental pulp stem cells. Stem Cells Int2019; 11.
51. Pagano S, Lombardo G, Balloni S, Bodo M, Cianetti S, Barbati A et al.Cytotoxicity of universal dental adhesive systems: Assessment in vitroassays on human gingival fibroblasts. Toxicology in vitro 2019; 60: 252-260.
52. Çelik N, Binnetoğlu D, Ozakar N, The cytotoxic and oxidative effects ofrestorative materials in cultured human gingival fibroblasts. Drug andChemical Toxicology, 2019;29:1-6.
53. Srivastava VK, Singh RK, Malhotra SN, Singh A. To evaluatecytotoxicity of resin-based restorative materials on human lymphocytesby trypan blue exclusion test: An in vitro study. International Journal ofClinical Pediatric Dentistry, 2010;3:147-152.
54. Aydın MS. Bakır Ş. Bakır E. Evaluation of biocompatibility of fourdifferent one-step self-etching adhesives by animal experimentalmethod. J Dent Sci Educ. 2023;1(3):81-89.
55. Süsgün Yıldırım Z, Bakır Ş, Bakır E, Foto E. Qualitative andQuantitative Evaluation of Cytotoxicity of Five Different One-Step Self-Etching Adhesives. Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry. 2018;16(6):525-532.
56. Güngör AS, et al. Effects of bioactive pulp capping materials on cellviability, differentiation and mineralization behaviors of human dentalpulp stem cells in vitro. Operative dentistry, 2023;48(3):317-328.
57. Zhang N, Chen C, Melo M, Bai Y, Cheng L, Xu H. A Novel Protein-Repellent Dental Composite Containing 2-MethacryloyloxyethylPhosphorylcholine. Int J Oral Sci 2015; 7: 103-109.
58. Ertan B,Özkaya Atalayın Ç. Biyouyumluluk Kavramına Restoratif DişTedavisi Özelinde Genel Bir Bakış. İzmir Diş Hekimleri Odası BilimselDergisi 2022; 2(1): 1-12.
59. Aksu S, Gürbüz T. Farklı Pulpa Kaplama Materyallerinin ToplamOksidan ve Antioksidan Kapasitelerinin İnsan Dental Pulpa KökHücreleri Üzerinde Değerlendirilmesi. Selcuk Dent J. 2020;7(2):192-199.
60. Chumpraman A, et al. Biocompatibility and mineralization activityof modified glass ionomer cement in human dental pulp stem cells.Journal of Dental Sciences, 2023;18(3):1055-1061.