Nileshkumar Dubey1, Jinping Xu1, Zhaocheng Zhang1, Jacques E Nör1, Marco C Bottino2. 1. Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences and Endodontics, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences and Endodontics, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: mbottino@umich.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the cytocompatibility and angiogenic potential of 2 antibiotics (clindamycin [CLIN] and minocycline [MINO]) at distinct concentrations on dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). METHODS: DPSCs and HUVECs were exposed to cell culture media modified with CLIN or MINO at concentrations ranging from 30 μg/mL-1000 μg/mL. Cell toxicity and proliferation were investigated using the lactate dehydrogenase and tetrazolium reduction assays, respectively. A capillarylike tube formation in vitro assay was conducted to determine the angiogenic potential associated with each antibiotic. Additionally, selected morphometric angiogenesis parameters were determined using dedicated software (WimTube; Onimagin Technologies SCA, Córdoba, Spain). All statistical analyses were performed using 1-way analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test (α= .05). RESULTS: The collected data showed that compared with the control (cell culture media, alpha-minimum essential medium Eagle) increasing the antibiotic concentration significantly decreased cell viability and proliferation of both DPSCs and HUVECs. In terms of angiogenic potential, when tested at 30 μg/mL and 50 μg/mL, CLIN significantly amplified tube formation when compared with MINO with angiogenesis parameters (ie, tube length and tube number) similar to the effect promoted by exogenous vascular endothelial growth factor (50 ng/mL). CONCLUSIONS: CLIN was less cytotoxic when compared with MINO at higher concentrations. Of note, CLIN did not hinder the proangiogenic activity induced by vascular endothelial growth factor to the same extent as MINO, suggesting that the replacement of MINO by CLIN might translate into positive implications in the overall regenerative outcome.
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the cytocompatibility and angiogenic potential of 2 antibiotics (clindamycin [CLIN] and minocycline [MINO]) at distinct concentrations on dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). METHODS: DPSCs and HUVECs were exposed to cell culture media modified with CLIN or MINO at concentrations ranging from 30 μg/mL-1000 μg/mL. Cell toxicity and proliferation were investigated using the lactate dehydrogenase and tetrazolium reduction assays, respectively. A capillarylike tube formation in vitro assay was conducted to determine the angiogenic potential associated with each antibiotic. Additionally, selected morphometric angiogenesis parameters were determined using dedicated software (WimTube; Onimagin Technologies SCA, Córdoba, Spain). All statistical analyses were performed using 1-way analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test (α= .05). RESULTS: The collected data showed that compared with the control (cell culture media, alpha-minimum essential medium Eagle) increasing the antibiotic concentration significantly decreased cell viability and proliferation of both DPSCs and HUVECs. In terms of angiogenic potential, when tested at 30 μg/mL and 50 μg/mL, CLIN significantly amplified tube formation when compared with MINO with angiogenesis parameters (ie, tube length and tube number) similar to the effect promoted by exogenous vascular endothelial growth factor (50 ng/mL). CONCLUSIONS:CLIN was less cytotoxic when compared with MINO at higher concentrations. Of note, CLIN did not hinder the proangiogenic activity induced by vascular endothelial growth factor to the same extent as MINO, suggesting that the replacement of MINO by CLIN might translate into positive implications in the overall regenerative outcome.
Authors: Joseph S Solomkin; John E Mazuski; Ellen J Baron; Robert G Sawyer; Avery B Nathens; Joseph T DiPiro; Timothy Buchman; E Patchen Dellinger; John Jernigan; Sherwood Gorbach; Anthony W Chow; John Bartlett Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2003-09-25 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Florian D Naal; Gian M Salzmann; Fabian von Knoch; Jutta Tuebel; Peter Diehl; Reiner Gradinger; Johannes Schauwecker Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Juliana S Ribeiro; Eliseu A Münchow; Ester A Ferreira Bordini; Wellington Luiz de Oliveira da Rosa; Marco C Bottino Journal: J Endod Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.171