Volume 1, Issue 2 (Journal of Research in Dental & Maxillofacial Sciences spring 2016)                   J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2016, 1(2): 28-35 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Koosha S, Nematolahi F, Torshabi M, Tabatabaei F, Borzoo Y, Vatandoost A. In Vitro Cytotoxicity of Two Categories of Dental Cements. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci. 2016; 1 (2) :28-35
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-106-en.html
1- Fixed Prosthodontics Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran , koosha.sa2015@gmail.com
2- Assistant Professor, Removable Prosthodontics Dept,Dental Branch of Tehran, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
3- Assistant Professor, Dental biomaterial Dept,Dental School,Shahid BeheshtiUniversity of Medical sciences, Tehran ,Iran.
4- Dental Student,Dental Branch of Tehran, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:   (17404 Views)

Background and Aim: Resin cements are used widely in restorative dentistry regardless of their biocompatibility. The aim of this study was to compare the cytotoxicity of two categories of dental cements consisting of three chemically set cements (Fuji I, Fuji PLUS and Harvard) and two dual curing cements (BisCem and Duo-Link) by use of MTT assay.

Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, four round-shaped samples of each specimen were placed in DMEM culture medium for 24, 48 and 72 hours. The extracts from each sample were applied on L929 mouse fibroblasts. At the end of each period, MTT assay was carried out to estimate the mitochondrial respiration. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post-hoc test. The degree of cytotoxicity for each sample was determined according to the reference value of the control group.

Results: Fuji I cement showed the least cytotoxicity while Harvard and BisCem cements showed the highest cytotoxic effect. The differences were not significant compared to the positive control (distilled water).

Conclusion: This study showed that dental cements are capable of eliciting biological response in gingival and pulpal cells. They present a potential risk of tissue damage which depends on the cement's brand and curing modes.

Full-Text [PDF 194 kb]   (2770 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (467 Views)  
Type of Study: Original article | Subject: Dental implant

References
1. Schedle A , Farnaz A,Rausch-FanX,Spittler A, Lucas T , Samorapoompichit P,et al. Cytotoxic effects of dental composites, adhesive substances , compomers and cements.Dent Mater1998; 14(6):429-40.
2. Yoshino P, Nishiyama CK, Modena KC, Santos CF, Sipert CR. In vitro cytotoxicity of white MTA, MTA Fillapex® and Portland cement on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. Braz Dent J 2013;24(2):111-6.
3. Mahasti S, Sattari M, Romoozi E, Akbar-Zadeh Baghban A. Cytotoxicity Comparison of Harvard Zinc Phosphate Cement Versus Panavia F2 and Rely X Plus Resin Cements on Rat L929-fibroblasts Cell J. 2011;13(3):163-8.
4. Leirskar J, Helgeland K.Toxicity of some dental cements in a cell celtular system. Scand J Dent Res 1977;85(6):471-9.
5. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ.Dental luting agents.A review of current literature.J Prosthet Dent1998;80(3):280-301.
6. Sumer E, Deger Y.Contemporary permanent luting agentsused in dentistry:A literature Review.Int Dent Res2011;1:26-31.
7. Six N, Lasfargues JJ, Goldburg M. In vivo study of the pulp reaction to Fuji IX, a glass ionomer cement. J Dent. 2000 ;28(6):413-22.
8. Souza PP, Aranha AM, Hebling J, Giro EM, Costa CA.In vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo biocompatibility of contemporary resin-modified glass-ionomer cements.Dent Mater 2006;22(9):838-44.
9. Wataha JC.Predicting clinical biological responses to dental materials.Dent Mater2012;28:23-40.
10. Costa CA , Giro EM, do Nascimento AB, Teixeira HM, Hebling J. Short-term evaluation of the pulpo-dentin complex response to a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and a bonding agent applied in deep cavities. Dent Mater 2003;19(8):739-46.
11. Hanks CT, Sun ZL, Fang DN, Edwards CA, Wataha JC, Ritchie HH, et al. Cloned 3T6 cell line from CD-1 mouse fetal molar dental papillae. Connect Tissue Res 1998;37(3-4):233-49.
12. Aranha AM, Giro EM, Souza PP, Hebling J, de Souza Costa CA. Effect of curing regime on the cytotoxicity of resin-modified glass-ionomer lining cements applied to an odontoblast- cell line. Dent Mater2006; 22(9):864-9.
13. Mosmann T.Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival:application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods 1983; 16;65(1-2):55-63.
14. Donadio M, Jiang J, He J,Wang YH,Safavi KE,Zhu Q.Cytotoxicity evaluation of active GP and Resilon sealers in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107(6):e74-8.
15. Meryon SD. The importance of surface area in the cytotoxicity of zinc phosphate and silicate cements in vitro.Biomaterials1983;4:39-43.
16. Schmalz G, Schuster U, Nuetzel K, Schweikl H. An invitro pulp chamber with three- dimentional cell cultures. J Endod 1999;25(1):24-9.
17. dos Santos RL, Pithon MM, Martins FO, Romanos MT, Ruellas AC. Evaluation of cytotoxicity and degree of conversion of glass ionomer cements reinforced with resin. Eur J Orthod 2012;34(3):362-6.
18. Thonemann B,Schmal Z G, Hiller KA,Schweikl H.Responses of L929 mouse fibroblasts, primary and immortalized bovine dental papilla-derived cell lines to dental resin components. Dent Mater2002; 18(4):318-23.
19. Karl L, Chavapil M, Zukoski CF. Effect of zinc on the viability and phagocytic capacity of peritoneal macrophages.proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1973;142(4):1123-7.
20. Lewis J,Nix L,Schuster G, Lefebvre C, Khoernschild K,Caughman G. Response of oral mucosal cells to glass ionomer cements. Biomaterials 1996; 17(11):1115-20.
21. Oliva A, Della Ragione F, Salerno A, Riccio V, Tartaro G, Cozzolino A, et al. Biocompatibility studies on glass ionomer cements by primary cultures of human osteoblast.Biomaterials1996; 17(13):1351-6.
22. de Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hanks CT. Invitro cytotoxicity of five glass- ionomer cements.Biomaterials2003;24(21):3853-8.
23. Bouillaguet S,Assaf Y, Virgillito M, Holz J, Meyer J. Invitro cytotoxicity of resin – reinforced glass ionomer cements. Acta Med Dent Helv 1999; (4):14-19.
24. Schmid-Schwap M, et al.Cytotoxicity of four categories of dental cements.Dent Mater 2009 ;25(3):360-8
25. Palmer G , Anstice HM , Pearson GJ.The effect of curing regime on the release of hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) from resin –modified glass ionomer cements. J Dent 1999 ;27(4):303-11.
26. Malkoc MA, Demir N, Sengun A, Bozkurt SB, Hakki SS. Cytotoxicity of temporary cements on bovine dental pulp- derived cells (bDPCs)using realtime analysis. JAdv Prosthodont 2015;7(1):21-6.
27. Kanjevac T, Milovanovic M, Volarevic V, Lukic ML, Arsenijevic N, Markovic D, et al.cytotoxic effects of glass ionomer cements on human dental pulp stem cells correlate with fluoride release. Med Chem 2012;8(1):40-5.
28. Tatjana V. Kanjevac , Marija Z. Milovanović , Olivera Milošević- Djordjević , Živoslav Tešić , Mirjana Ivanović , Aleksandra Lukić.Cytotoxicity of glassinomer cement on human exfoliated deciduous teeth stem cells correlates with released fluoride ,strontium and aluminium ion concentrations.Arch,Biol,Sci. ,Belgrade2015;67 (2):619-30.
29. Schmalz G,Garhammer P, Schweiki H.A commercially available cell culture device modified for dentin barrier tests. J Endod. 1996;22(5):249-52.
30. Hanks CT, Diehi ML, Makinen PL,Pashly DH.Characterization of invitro pulp chamber using the cytotoxicity of phenol . J oral pathol 1989 ;18(2):97-107.
31. Ulker HE,Sengun A.Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Self Adhesive Composite Resin Cements by Dentin Barrier Test on 3D Pulp Cells. Eur J Dent 2009; 3(2):120-126.
32. Moszner N, Salz U,Zimmermann J. Chemical aspects of self- etching enamel- dentin adhesives:a systematic review.Dent Mater2005;21(10):895-910.
33. Piva E, Correr-sobrinho L,Sinhoreti MA, Consani S,Demarco FF,Powers JM. Influence of energy density of different light sources on Knoop hardness of a dual-cured resin cement. J App Oral Sci2008; 16(3):189-93.
34. Obici AC,Sinhoreti MA, de Goes MF, Consani S,Sobrinho LC. Effect of the photo-activation method on polymerization shirinkage of restorative composites. Oper Dent2002; 27(2):192-8.
35. Goldberg M.Invitro and invivo studies on the cytotoxicity of dental resin components: a review. Clin Oral Investig 2008; 12(1):1-8.
36. Bakopoulou A, Mourelatos D, Tsiftsoglou AS, Giassin NP,Mioglou E, Garefis P. Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of different types of dental cement on normal cultured human lymphocytes. Mutat Res2009; 31;672(2):103-12.
37. Kwon JS , Piao yz,Cho SA,Yang SY,Kim JH,An S, Kim Km.Biocompatibility evaluation of dental luting cements using Cytokine released from human and oral fibroblasts and Keratinocytes.Materials2015;8(11):7269-77.
38. Dioguardi M, Perrone D, Troiano G , Laino L, Ardito F, Lauritano F,et al.Cytotoxicity evaluation of five different dual-cured resin cements used for fiber posts cementation.Int J Clin Exp Med2015 7;8(6):9327-33.
39. Yoshii E.Cytotoxic effects of acrylates and methacrylates :relationships of monomer structures and cytotoxicity. J Biomed Mater Res1997 15; 37(4):517-24.
40. Ergun G,Egilmez F, Yilmaz S.Effect of reduced exposure times on the cytotoxicity of resin luting cements cured by high – power led. J App oral sci2011;19(3):286-92.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2021 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb