Rene Garcia-Contreras1, Rogelio J Scougall-Vilchis2, Rosalia Contreras-Bulnes3, Yumiko Kanda4, Hiroshi Nakajima5, Hiroshi Sakagami6. 1. Dental and Advanced Studies Research Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Autonomous University State of Mexico, Toluca, Mexico Division of Pharmacology, Meikai University School of Dentistry, Sakado, Saitama, Japan sakagami@dent.meikai.ac.jp dentist.garcia@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Autonomous University State of Mexico, Toluca, Mexico. 3. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Autonomous University State of Mexico, Toluca, Mexico. 4. Department of Electron Microscopy, Meikai University School of Dentistry, Sakado, Saitama, Japan. 5. Division of Dental Biomaterials Science, Meikai University School of Dentistry, Sakado, Saitama, Japan. 6. Division of Pharmacology, Meikai University School of Dentistry, Sakado, Saitama, Japan sakagami@dent.meikai.ac.jp dentist.garcia@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemo-mechanical caries removal eliminates the outermost portion of the infected layer, leaving behind healthy dentine surfaces, with scarce dental tissue damage; however, the safety of caries solvents has not been established. The aim of the present study was to investigate the possible cytotoxicity of two popular chemo-mechanical caries removal agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cytotoxicity of Carisolv, Papacarie Duo and control vehicle solution (0.155-20% v/v) against human oral squamous cell carcinoma cells (HCS-2, HSC-3, HSC-4, Ca9-22) human gingival fibroblast (HGF), pulp (HPC) and periodontal ligament fibroblast (HPLF) was determined by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide method. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) was quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Changes in fine cell structure were assessed by transmission electron microscopy. RESULTS: Carisolv exhibited neither cytotoxicity nor hormetic growth stimulation. Papacarie Duo significantly reduced the viable cell number within 30 min. HSC-4 exhibited the highest sensitivity, followed by HSC-2>HSC-3>HPLF>Ca9-22>HPC>HGF cells. Interleukin-1β (3 ng/ml) stimulated HGF, but not HPC cells to produce PGE2 in the culture medium. Papacarie Duo stimulated HGF cells to produce PGE2 in synergistic fashion with interleukin-1β. CONCLUSION: Carisolv had acceptable biocompatibility with both normal and cancerous oral cells. On the other hand, Papacarie Duo had a rapid but slight cytotoxicity and pro-inflammatory action against oral cells, suggesting the importance of careful application of this agent.
BACKGROUND: Chemo-mechanical caries removal eliminates the outermost portion of the infected layer, leaving behind healthy dentine surfaces, with scarce dental tissue damage; however, the safety of caries solvents has not been established. The aim of the present study was to investigate the possible cytotoxicity of two popular chemo-mechanical caries removal agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cytotoxicity of Carisolv, Papacarie Duo and control vehicle solution (0.155-20% v/v) against humanoral squamous cell carcinoma cells (HCS-2, HSC-3, HSC-4, Ca9-22) human gingival fibroblast (HGF), pulp (HPC) and periodontal ligament fibroblast (HPLF) was determined by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide method. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) was quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Changes in fine cell structure were assessed by transmission electron microscopy. RESULTS: Carisolv exhibited neither cytotoxicity nor hormetic growth stimulation. Papacarie Duo significantly reduced the viable cell number within 30 min. HSC-4 exhibited the highest sensitivity, followed by HSC-2>HSC-3>HPLF>Ca9-22>HPC>HGF cells. Interleukin-1β (3 ng/ml) stimulated HGF, but not HPC cells to produce PGE2 in the culture medium. Papacarie Duo stimulated HGF cells to produce PGE2 in synergistic fashion with interleukin-1β. CONCLUSION: Carisolv had acceptable biocompatibility with both normal and cancerous oral cells. On the other hand, Papacarie Duo had a rapid but slight cytotoxicity and pro-inflammatory action against oral cells, suggesting the importance of careful application of this agent.