Thiago Isidro Vieira1, João Victor Frazão Câmara2, Júlia Gabiroboertz Cardoso3, Adílis Kalina Alexandria4, Andréa Vaz Braga Pintor5, Jaqueline Correia Villaça6, Lúcio Mendes Cabral7, Maria Teresa Villela Romanos8, Andrea Fonseca-Gonçalves9, Ana Maria Gondim Valença10, Lucianne Cople Maia11. 1. Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: thiagoisidro@ufrj.br. 2. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: jvfrazao@ufrj.br. 3. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: juliagcardoso@ufrj.br. 4. Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: adilisalexandria@ufrj.br. 5. Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: avbpintor@ufrj.br. 6. School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: jackcvm@ufrj.br. 7. School of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: lmcabral@pharma.ufrj.br. 8. Laboratório Experimental de Drogas Antivirais e Citotóxicas, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: teresa.romanos@micro.ufrj.br. 9. Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: andrea.goncalves@odonto.ufrj.br. 10. Department of Clinic and Social Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Paraíba, Brazil. Electronic address: ana.valenca@ccs.ufpb.br. 11. Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Electronic address: maia_lc@ufrj.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cytotoxicity, antimicrobial activity and in vitro influence of new fluoridated nanocomplexes on dental demineralization. DESIGN: The nanocomplexes hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin with 1% titanium tetrafluoride (TiF4) and γ-cyclodextrin with TiF4 were compared to a positive control (TiF4), a blank control (without treatment) and negative controls (hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin, γ-cyclodextrin, deionized water), following 12- and 72-hour complexation periods. The cytotoxicity was assessed using the neutral red dye uptake assay at T1-15 min, T2-30 min and T3-24 h. A minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) against Streptococcus mutans (ATCC 25175) was performed. Enamel blocks were exposed to an S. mutans biofilm, and the percentage of surface microhardness loss was obtained. Biocompatibility and microhardness data were analysed using ANOVA/Tukey tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: At T1, the cell viability results of the nanocomplexes were similar to that of the blank control. At T2 and T3, the 72 h nanocomplexes demonstrated cell viability results similar to that of the blank, while the 12 h solutions showed results different from that of the blank (p < 0.05). All fluoridated nanocompounds inhibited S. mutans (MBC = 0.25%), while the MBC of TiF4 alone was 0.13%. All fluoridated compounds presented a percentage of surface microhardness loss lower than that of deionized water (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The new fluoridated nanocomplexes did not induce critical cytotoxic effects during the experimental periods, whilst they did show bactericidal potential against S. mutans and inhibited enamel mineral loss.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the cytotoxicity, antimicrobial activity and in vitro influence of new fluoridated nanocomplexes on dental demineralization. DESIGN: The nanocomplexes hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin with 1% titanium tetrafluoride (TiF4) and γ-cyclodextrin with TiF4 were compared to a positive control (TiF4), a blank control (without treatment) and negative controls (hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin, γ-cyclodextrin, deionized water), following 12- and 72-hour complexation periods. The cytotoxicity was assessed using the neutral red dye uptake assay at T1-15 min, T2-30 min and T3-24 h. A minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) against Streptococcus mutans (ATCC 25175) was performed. Enamel blocks were exposed to an S. mutans biofilm, and the percentage of surface microhardness loss was obtained. Biocompatibility and microhardness data were analysed using ANOVA/Tukey tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: At T1, the cell viability results of the nanocomplexes were similar to that of the blank control. At T2 and T3, the 72 h nanocomplexes demonstrated cell viability results similar to that of the blank, while the 12 h solutions showed results different from that of the blank (p < 0.05). All fluoridated nanocompounds inhibited S. mutans (MBC = 0.25%), while the MBC of TiF4 alone was 0.13%. All fluoridated compounds presented a percentage of surface microhardness loss lower than that of deionized water (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The new fluoridated nanocomplexes did not induce critical cytotoxic effects during the experimental periods, whilst they did show bactericidal potential against S. mutans and inhibited enamel mineral loss.
Authors: Thiago I Vieira; Adílis K Alexandria; Jaqueline C V Menezes; Lilian H do Amaral; Thaís M P Dos Santos; Aline de A Neves; Ricardo T Lopes; Lúcio M Cabral; Ana M G Valença; Lucianne C Maia Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 3.573