Literature DB >> 23744725

Cytotoxicity of adhesive systems of different hydrophilicities on cultured odontoblast-like cells.

Luciana Bianchi1, Ana Paula Dias Ribeiro, Marcela Rocha de Oliveira Carrilho, David H Pashley, Carlos Alberto de Souza Costa, Josimeri Hebling.   

Abstract

This study evaluated the cytotoxicity of experimental adhesive systems (EASs) on odontoblast-like cells. Paper discs (n = 132) were impregnated with 10 µL of each EAS-R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 (in an ascending order of hydrophilicity), followed by photoactivation. R1 and R2 are nonsolvated hydrophobic blends, R3 represents a simplified etch-and-rinse adhesive system, and R4 and R5 represent simplified self-etch adhesive systems. Discs were immersed in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium for 24 h to obtain eluates applied on MDPC-23 cell cultures. No material was applied on discs used as control (R0). Cell viability [3-(4,5-dimethythiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide assay], total protein (TP) production, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, type of cell death, and degree of monomer conversion Fourier transform infrared (%DC-FTIR) were evaluated. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (α = 0.05). Considering R0 (control) as having 100% of cell viability, R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 reduced the metabolic activity of cells by 36.4, 3.1, 0.2, 21.5, and 65.7%, respectively, but only R1 and R5 differed from R0. Comparing with R0, lower TP production was observed for R1, R4, and R5, while ALP activity decreased for R1 and R5. Necrotic cell death was predominant for all EASs, but only R1, R4, and R5 differed from R0. Only R5 presented a different apoptotic cell death ratio from R0. R1 presented the lowest %DC (ca. 37%), whereas R4 and R5 presented the highest (ca. 56%). In conclusion, R2 and R3 were not toxic to the MDPC-23 cells, suggesting that the degree of hydrophilicity or %DC of the EASs alone were not responsible for their cytopathic effects.
Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adhesive system; cytotoxicity; hydrophilicity; odontoblast-like MDPC-23 cells

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23744725     DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.32971

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater        ISSN: 1552-4973            Impact factor:   3.368


  5 in total

1.  Evaluation of Biocompatibility of an Etch-and-Rinse Adhesive System Based in Tertiary Butanol Applied in Deep Cavity.

Authors:  Gilvanely Cardoso Alves; Ana Paula Veras Sobral
Journal:  Open Dent J       Date:  2015-05-15

2.  Morpho-functional effects of different universal dental adhesives on human gingival fibroblasts: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Stefano Pagano; Guido Lombardo; Egidia Costanzi; Stefania Balloni; Stefano Bruscoli; Sara Flamini; Maddalena Coniglio; Chiara Valenti; Stefano Cianetti; Lorella Marinucci
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 2.634

3.  Cytotoxicity of Etch-and-Rinse, Self-Etch, and Universal Dental Adhesive Systems in Fibroblast Cell Line 3T3.

Authors:  Yasmine Mendes Pupo; Cintia Fernanda de Freitas Bernardo; Francielly Fernanda de Freitas A de Souza; Milton Domingos Michél; Camila Nunes de Morais Ribeiro; Sandro Germano; Daniela Florencio Maluf
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 1.932

4.  The Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Three Dental Universal Adhesives-An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Adam Wawrzynkiewicz; Wioletta Rozpedek-Kaminska; Grzegorz Galita; Monika Lukomska-Szymanska; Barbara Lapinska; Jerzy Sokolowski; Ireneusz Majsterek
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-05-31       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  Sorption, solubility and cytotoxicity of novel antibacterial nanofilled dental adhesive resins.

Authors:  Fernando Luis Esteban Florez; Hannah Kraemer; Rochelle Denise Hiers; Catharina Marques Sacramento; Adam Justin Rondinone; Karina Gonzales Silvério; Sharukh S Khajotia
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-11       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.