Dulbecco s modified eagle s medium

The 3D4/21-CD163 cells [36 (link)] were grown in Roswell Park Memorial Institute 1640 (RPMI-1640; Hyclone Laboratories, Logan, UT, USA) and supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS, Eallbio, Beijing, China), whereas the myeloma cells SP2/0, Marc-145, and HEK293T cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM; Life Technologies Corp., Grand Island, NY, USA), containing 10% FBS at 37 °C in 5% CO₂. Primary porcine alveolar macrophages (PAMs) were prepared using regular bronchoalveolar lavage from 2-month-old domestic pigs, and cultured in RPMI-1640 medium supplemented with 10% FBS.
The PRRSV strains used in this study were all stored in our laboratory, including NADC30-like PRRSV-2 strain SD17-38 (lineage 1, GenBank: MH068878.1) [37 (link)], NADC34-like PRRSV-2 strain Anheal-1 (lineage 1, GenBank: MH370474.1, a courtesy from Dr. Xizhao Chen at Anheal Laboratories Co., Ltd. Beijing, China), Classic PRRSV-2 VR-2332-like strain R98 (lineage 5, GenBank: DQ355796.1), classical PRRSV-2 vaccine strain CH-1R (lineage 8, GenBank: EU807840.1), HP-PRRSV-2 virulent strain XJ17-5 (lineage 8, GenBank: MK759853.1) and avirulent strain JSTZ1712-12 (lineage 8, GenBank: MK906026.1) [38 (link)], PRRSV-1 strain SD1291 [39 (link)], and PRRSV-1 strain HLJB1 (GenBank: KT224385.1) [40 (link)]. The 3D4/21-CD163 cells were infected with SD17-38 (0.1 MOI) or Anheal-1 (0.1 MOI) for 72 h; the Marc-145 cells were infected with R98 (0.1 MOI), CH-1R (0.1 MOI), XJ17-5 (0.1 MOI), or JSTZ1712-12 (0.1 MOI) for 72 h; and the primary PAMs were infected with HLJB1 (0.1 MOI) or SD1291 (0.1 MOI) for 72 h.
BALB/c mice were purchased from Yangzhou University animal facility, and this study was approved by the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and Yangzhou University (SYXK(JS)-2022-0044).

For our study, three suitable materials were selected for CAD/CAM techniques that have a dominant role into the restorative dentistry in Romania. The three materials belonged to one of the three classes of fillers: (i) glass fibers, (ii) ZrO₂ based, and (iii) feldspar based. The aim of the investigation was to evaluate and to compare the selected materials from the physicochemical and mechanical point of view and to assess the difference in term of stability between classes following incubation of human gingival fibroblasts. The complete characteristics of the materials involved in our study are presented in Table 1.
All samples from each material were cut from commercial blocks (they were attached to a sample holder and sectioned into smaller pieces with a cutting machine) and shaped as discus for easy handling, with diameter of d = 13 mm and thickness of h = 3 mm (A_sample = 3.87 cm²). The surface was roughly polished to a normal smooth surface with silica carbide paper (no 400, no 600, and no 1200). Three samples were fabricated in this way for each of the composites.
The above-mentioned dental materials were investigated in different conditions as follows and labeled by letter: (i) A—cells (human gingival fibroblasts, HFIB-Gs) incubated over the material for each sample; (ii) B—reference, the rough material; (iii) C—materials incubated in DMEM (Dulbecco’s modified eagle’s medium, Gibco Invitrogen, Darmstadt, Germany).