MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty maxillary central incisors were divided into Group I, II, and III with 20 samples each based on luting cement used. They were OF, self-adhesive (SA) cement, and total etch (TE) cement. These groups were subdivided into "a" and "b" of ten each based on the type of veneering materials used. Veneer discs were fabricated using Ormocer restorative (O) and pressable ceramic (C). Specimens were thermocycled and loaded under universal testing machine for SBS. The statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA post hoc Tukey honest significant difference method.
RESULTS: A significant difference was observed between the Groups I and II (P < 0.05). The highest mean bond strength when using ormocer veneer was obtained with the Group Ia (19.11 ± 1.92 Mpa) and lowest by Group IIa (8.1 ± 1.04 Mpa), whereas the highest mean bond strength while using ceramic veneer was of similar range for Group Ib (18.04 ± 4.08 Mpa) and Group IIIb (18.07 ± 1.40 Mpa). SEM analysis revealed OF and TE presented mixed type of failure when compared with SA where failure mode was totally adhesive.
CONCLUSION: OF was found equally efficient like TE. Bond strength of ormocer as a veneer was not inferior to ceramic making it one of the promising additions in the field of dentistry.
OBJECTIVES: The current study investigated the gene expression profile of hepatocellular carcinoma, HepG2, cells after treatment with Limonene.
METHODS: The concentration that killed 50% of HepG2 cells was used to elucidate the genetic mechanisms of limonene anticancer activity. The apoptotic induction was detected by flow cytometry and confocal fluorescence microscope. Two of the pro-apoptotic events, caspase-3 activation and phosphatidylserine translocation were manifested by confocal fluorescence microscopy. Highthroughput real-time PCR was used to profile 1023 cancer-related genes in 16 different gene families related to the cancer development.
RESULTS: In comparison to untreated cells, limonene increased the percentage of apoptotic cells up to 89.61%, by flow cytometry, and 48.2% by fluorescence microscopy. There was a significant limonene- driven differential gene expression of HepG2 cells in 15 different gene families. Limonene was shown to significantly (>2log) up-regulate and down-regulate 14 and 59 genes, respectively. The affected gene families, from the most to the least affected, were apoptosis induction, signal transduction, cancer genes augmentation, alteration in kinases expression, inflammation, DNA damage repair, and cell cycle proteins.
CONCLUSION: The current study reveals that limonene could be a promising, cheap, and effective anticancer compound. The broad spectrum of limonene anticancer activity is interesting for anticancer drug development. Further research is needed to confirm the current findings and to examine the anticancer potential of limonene along with underlying mechanisms on different cell lines.