Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.2
Scopus CiteScore – 3.4 (CiteScore Tracker 3.4)
Index Copernicus  – 161.11; MEiN – 140 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2017, vol. 26, nr 1, January-February, p. 15–22

doi: 10.17219/acem/61438

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

The analysis of cytotoxicity of an experimental preparation used for the reduction of dentin hypersensitivity

Marta Tanasiewicz1,A,C,D,E,F, Małgorzata Skucha-Nowak1,C,E, Mirosław Gibas2,E, Justyna Pawlak3,B, Włodzimierz Więckiewicz4,E, Anna Mertas5,B, Wojciech Król5,E

1 Department of Conservative Dentistry with Endodontics, Medical University of Silesia, Bytom, Poland

2 Department of Organic, Bio-organic Chemistry and Biotechnology, Technical University of Silesia, Gliwice, Poland

3 Dental Practice, Wrocław, Poland

4 Department of Dental Prosthetics, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

5 Department of Microbiology and Embryology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze Rokitnica, Poland


Background. The problem of effective treatment of dentin hypersensitivity is still valid and not fully resolved.
Objectives. The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential toxicity against body tissues of an experimental preparation which is supposed to reduce dentin hypersensitivity and to compare it to a commercial formulation Seal & Protect (Dentsply) by means of measuring the activity of mitochondrial dehydrogenases (the MTT assay).
Material and Methods. The study used an original protective formulation which is supposed to eliminate hypersensitivity of dentin. A commercial preparation Seal & Protect (Dentsply) was used as the comparative material. Cytotoxic activity of the tested preparations (experimental and commercial) on murine lymphocyte cells CCL-1™ (NCTC clone 929) was determined in indirect contact with the use of the MTT test that measured the activity of the mitochondrial dehydrogenase enzyme.
Results. A comparison of the results obtained in the MTT assay for the commercial preparation Seal & Protect (Dentsply) and the experimental formulation indicates that an experimental formulation has considerably lower cytotoxicity before polymerization, when compared to the commercial formulation, regardless of its dilution. However, after the polymerization of the commercial formulation was completed, its parameters improved significantly, especially for higher dilution values (1 : 10 and 1 : 15). Results for the experimental formulation are higher, particularly for the dilution value of 1 : 5. The overall summary of the results obtained from the MTT assay for the commercial preparation Seal & Protect (Dentsply) and the experimental formulation indicates that the experimental formulation had a significantly lower cytotoxicity before polymerization in comparison with the commercial formulation, regardless of dilution.
Conclusion. Estimating the biocompatibility of a given material is not simple, and measurement methods are rapidly evolving, as more and more is known about the interaction between dental materials and oral tissues, and also as a result of improvements in testing techniques.

Key words

cytotoxicity tests, dentine, hypersensitivity

References (24)

  1. Ponce-Bravo S, Ledesma-Montes C, Martinez-Rivera JL, Garces-Ortiz M. Toxicity test of a dental commercial composite. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015;7(2):289–292.
  2. Nocca G, Calla C, Martorana GE, et al. Effects of dental methacrylates on oxygen consumption and redox status of human pulp cells [published online on February 20 2014]. Biomed Res Int. 2014. doi: 10.1155/2014/956579.
  3. Ratannasathien S, Wataha J, Hanks C, Dennison JB. Cytotoxic interactive effects of dentin bonding components on mouse fibroblasts. J Dent Res. 1995;74:1602–1609
  4. Krzysztoń-Russjan J, Książek I, Anuszewska E. Porównanie użyteczności testów MTT i EZ4U stosowanych do oceny cytotoksyczności kseno-biotyków. Farm Pol. 2009;65(6):395–402.
  5. Hotwani K, Thosar N, Baliga S, Bundale S, Sharma K. Antibacterial effects of hybrid tooth colored restorative materials against Streptococcus mutans: An in vitro analysis. J Conserv Dent. 2013;16(4):
  6. Bakopoulou A, Papadopoulos T, Garefis P. Molecular tixicology of substances released from resin-based dental restorative materials. Int J Mol Sci. 2009;10(9): 2861–3899.
  7. Krifka S, Spagnuolo G, Schmalz G, Schweikl H. A review of adaptive mechanisms in cell responses towards oxidative stresses caused by dental resin monomers. Biomaterials. 2013;34(19):4555–4563.
  8. Abou Hashieh I, Franquin IC, Cosset A, Dejou I, Camps I. Relationship between dentine hydraulic conductance and the cytotoxicity of four dentine bonding resins in vitro. J Dent. 1998;26:473–477.
  9. Groble SR, Oliver A, Moodley D, van Dyk Kotze J. Cytotoxicity of recent dentin bonding agents on Mouse fibroblast cells. Quintessence Int. 2008;39:511–516.
  10. Wataha JC. Cytotoxicity of componenets of resin and other restorative materials. J Oral Rehab. 1994;21:453–462.
  11. Camps J, Aboutt I, van Meerebeek B, Franquin JC. Efficiency and cytotoxicity of resin-based desesitizing agents. Am J Dent. 2002;15:300–304.
  12. Sengun A, Buyukbas S, Hakki SS. Cytotoxic effects of dental desensitisers on human gingival fibroblast. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006;78:131–137.
  13. Wiegand A, Buchholz K, Werner C, Attin T. In vitro cytotoxicity of different desensitizers under simulated pulpal flow conditio. J Adhes Dent. 2008;10:227–232.
  14. Fujisawa S, Kadoma Y. Prediction of the reduced glutathione (GSH) reactivity of dental methacrylate monomers using NMR spectra – Relationship between toxicity and GSH reactivity. Dent Mater J. 2009;28(6):722–729.
  15. Mossman T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: Application for proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Meth. 1983;65:55–63.
  16. Buonocore D, Grosini M, Giardina S, et al. Bioavailability study of an innovative orobuccal formulation of glutathione [published online on November 16 2016]. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2016. doi: 10.1155/2016/3286365.
  17. Olteanu D, Filip A, Socaci C, et al. Cytotoxicity assessment of graphene-based nanomaterials on human dental follicle stem cells. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2015;21:791–798.
  18. Franz A, Konig F, Lucas T, Watts DC, Schelde A. Cytotoxic effects of dental bonding substances as a function of degree of conversion. Dent Mater. 2009;25:232–239.
  19. Huang FM, Chang YC. Cytotoxicity of dentin-bonding agents on human pulp cell in vitro. Int Endod J. 2002;35:905–909.
  20. Huang FM, Chou MY, Chang YC. Dentin bonding agents induce c-fos and c-jun protooncogenes expression in human gingival fibroblasts. Biomater. 2003;24: 157–163.
  21. Koulaouzidou EA, Papazisis KT, Yiannaki E, Palagbias G, Helvatjoglu-Antoniades M. Effects of dentin bodning agents on the cell cycle of fibro-blastis. I Enodod. 2009;35:275–279.
  22. Barbosa MO, de Carvalho RV, Demarco FF, et al. Experimental self-etching HEMA-free adhesive systems: Cytotoxicity and degree of conver-sion. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2015;26(1):5370–5375.
  23. Oliveira DC, Silva CB, Muniz BV, Volpato MC, Costa AR, Sinhoreti MA. Effect of 4-(N,N-dimethylamino)phenethyl alcohol on degree of conver-sion and cytotoxicity of photo-polymerized CQ-based resin composites. Braz Dent J. 2014;25(6):538–542.
  24. Tsitrou E, Kelogrigoris S, Koulaouzidou E, Antoniades-Halvatjoglou M, Koliniotou-Koumpia E, van Noort R. Effect of extraction media and storage time on the elution of monomers from four contemporary resin composite materials. Toxicol Int. 2014;21(1):89–95.