Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1 (5-Year IF – 2.0)
Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) (2023) – 0.4
Scopus CiteScore – 3.7 (CiteScore Tracker 3.8)
Index Copernicus  – 171.00; MNiSW – 70 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 7, October, p. 1041–1045

doi: 10.17219/acem/64944

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

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

Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of selected conventional glass ionomer cements on human gingival fibroblasts

Grażyna Marczuk-Kolada1,A,B,C,D, Elżbieta Łuczaj-Cepowicz1,B,C,D, Małgorzata Pawińska2,C,D,E, Adam Hołownia3,A,B,F

1 Department of Pedodontics, Medical University of Bialystok, Poland

2 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Medical University of Bialystok, Poland

3 Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Bialystok, Poland

Abstract

Background. Dentistry materials are the most frequently used substitutes of human tissues. Therefore, an assessment of dental filling materials should cover not only their chemical, physical, and mechanical characteristics, but also their cytotoxicity.
Objectives. To compare the cytotoxic effects of 13 conventional glass ionomer cements on human gingival fibroblasts.
Material and Methods. The assessment was conducted using the MTT test. Six samples were prepared for each material. Culture plates with cells and inserts with the materials were incubated at 37°C, 5% CO2, and 95% humidity for 24 h. Then the inserts were removed, 1 mL of MTT was added in the amount of 0.5 mg/1 mL of the medium, and the samples were incubated in the described conditions without light for 2 h. The optical density was measured with an absorption spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 560 nm.
Results. The cytotoxic effects of the Argion Molar was significantly stronger than the Fuji Triage (p = 0.007), Chemfil Molar (p < 0.0001), and Ionofil Molar AC Quick (p < 0.001). The Fuji IX GP and Fuji IX Extra had a significantly stronger adverse effect than the Chemfil Molar (p = 0.014, p = 0.029, respectively) and Ionofil Molar AC Quick (p = 0.017, p = 0.034, respectively). The cements from the low cytotoxicity group were significantly more toxic vs materials whose presence resulted in fibroblast growth (p < 0.001).
Conclusion. The research conducted indicates that, although the materials studied may belong to the same group, they are characterized by low, yet not uniform, cytotoxicity on human gingival fibroblasts. The toxic effects should not be assigned to a relevant group of materials, but each dentistry product should be evaluated individually.

Key words

dentistry, fibroblasts, glass ionomer cements

References (30)

  1. Tillberg A, Järvholm B, Berglund A. Risks with dental materials. Dent Mater. 2008;24:940–943.
  2. Murray PE, Garcia Godoy C, Garcia Godoy F. How is the biocompatibility of dental biomaterials evaluated? Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007;12:E258–266.
  3. Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practitioners. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86:203–209.
  4. Schmalz G. Concepts in biocompatibility testing of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest. 1997;1:154–162.
  5. Mount GJ. Clinical performance of glass-ionomers. Biomaterials. 1998;19:573–579.
  6. Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. Adhesive restorative materials: A review. Austr Dent J. 2004;49:112–121.
  7. Davidson CL. Advances in glass-ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006;14:3–9.
  8. Mickenautsch S, Mount G, Yengopal V. Therapeutic effect of glass-ionomers: An overview of evidence. Austr Dent J. 2011;56:10–15.
  9. Dos Santos RL, De Carvalho FG, Guệnes GMT, Alves PM, Pithon MM. Histological analysis of biocompatibility of ionomer cements with an acid-base reaction. Braz Oral Res. 2014;28:1–7.
  10. Lan WH, Lan WC, Wang TM, et al. Cytotoxicity of conventional and modified glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent. 2003;28:251–259.
  11. De Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hanks CT. In vitro cytotoxicity of five glass-ionomer cements. Biomaterials. 2003;24:3853–3858.
  12. Hany Mohamed AA, Nor Shamsuria O, Norhayati L, Rajan S, Deepti S. Cytotoxicity evaluation of a new fast set highly viscous conventional glass ionomer cement with L929 fibroblast cell line. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14:406–408.
  13. Kilic D, Kesim S, Liman N, Sumer Z, Ozturk A. In vitro comparison of the effects of dental filling materials on mouse fibroblasts. Biotechnol & Biotechnol Eq. 2012;26:3155–3162.
  14. Milhem MM, Al-Hiyasat AS, Darmani H. Toxicity testing of restorative dental materials using brine shrimp larvae (Artemia salina). J Appl Oral Sci. 2008;16:297–301.
  15. Stanislawski L, Soheili-Majd E, Perianin A, Goldberg M. Dental restorative biomaterials induce glutathione depletion in cultured human gingival fibroblast: Protective effect of N-acetyl cysteine. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;51:469–474.
  16. Schedle A, Franz A, Rausch-Fan X, et al. Cytotoxic effects of dental composites, adhesive substances, compomers and cements. Dent Mater. 1998;14:429–440.
  17. Schmid-Schwap M, Franz A, König F, et al. Cytotoxicity of four categories of dental cements. Dent Mater. 2009;25:360–368.
  18. Souza PP, Aranha AM, Hebling J, Giro EM, de Souza Costa CA. In vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo biocompatibility of contemporary resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2006;22:838–844.
  19. Da Silva EJ, Santos CC, Zaia AA. Long-term cytotoxic effects of contemporary root canal sealers. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013;21:43–47.
  20. Geursten W. Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2000;11:333–355.
  21. Consiglio R, Rengo S, Liguoro D, et al. Inhibition by glass-ionomer cements of protein synthesis by human gingival fibroblasts in continuous culture. Arch Oral Biol. 1998;43:65–71.
  22. Lewis J, Nix L, Schuster G, Levebvre C, Knoernschild K, Caughman G. Response of oral mucosal cells to glass ionomer cements. Biomaterials. 1996;17:1115–1120.
  23. Stanislawski L, Daniau X, Lautié A, Goldberg M. Factors responsible for pulp cell cytotoxicity induced by resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;48:277–288.
  24. Kan KC, Messer LB, Messer HH. Variability in cytotoxicity and fluoride release of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res. 1997;76:1502–1507.
  25. Wilson AD, Groffman DM, Kuhn AT. The release of fluoride and other chemical species from a glass-ionomer cement. Biomaterials. 1985;6:431–433.
  26. Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B, Limanowska-Shaw H. Buffering and ion-release by glass-ionomer cement under near-neutral and acidic conditions. Biomaterials. 2002;23:2783–2788.
  27. Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B. Review paper: Role of aluminum in glass-ionomer dental cements and its biological effects. J Biomater Appl. 2009;24:293–308.
  28. Forss H. Release of fluoride and other elements from light- cured glass-ionomer in neutral and acidic conditions. J Dent Res. 1993;72:1257–1262.
  29. Soheili Majd E, Goldberg M, Stanislawski L. In vitro effects of ascorbate and Trolox on the biocompatibility of dental restorative materials. Biomaterials. 2003;24:3–9.
  30. Hamid A, Hume WR. The effect of dentine thickness on diffusion of resin monomers in vitro. J Oral Rehab. 1997;24:20–25.
© Wroclaw Medical University