Camelia A Szuhanek1, Claudia G Watz2, Ștefana Avram3, Elena-Alina Moacă4, Ciprian V Mihali5,6, Adelina Popa1, Andrada A Campan4, Mirela Nicolov2, Cristina A Dehelean4. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 9 No., Revolutiei Bv., 300041 Timişoara, Romania. 2. Departament of Pharmaceutical Physics and Biophysics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timişoara, Romania. 3. Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timişoara, Romania. 4. Departament of Toxicology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Victor Babeş University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 2nd Eftimie Murgu Sq., 300041 Timişoara, Romania. 5. Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Vasile Goldis Western University of Arad, 86 No., Liviu Rebreanu St., 310414 Arad, Romania. 6. Molecular Research Department, Research and Development Station for Bovine, 32 No., Bodrogului St., 310059 Arad, Romania.
Abstract
Selecting the most biocompatible orthodontic implant available on the market may be a major challenge, given the wide array of orthodontic devices currently available on the market. The latest scientific data have suggested that in vitro evaluations using oral cell lines provide reliable data regarding the toxicity of residual particles released by different types of orthodontic devices. In this regard, the in vitro biocompatibility of three different commercially available implants (stainless steel and titanium-based implants) was assessed. METHODS: As an in vitro model, human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) were employed to evaluate the cellular morphology, cell viability, and cytotoxicity by means of 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assays at 24 h and 72 h post-exposure to test implants. RESULTS: The results correlate the composition and topography of the implant surface with biological experimental evaluations related to directly affected cells (gingival fibroblasts) and toxicological results on blood vessels (hen's egg test-chorioallantoic membrane (HET-CAM) assay). The stainless steel implant exhibits a relative cytotoxicity against HGF cells, while the other two samples induced no significant alterations of HGF cells. CONCLUSION: Among the three test orthodontic implants, the stainless steel implant induced slight cytotoxic effects, thus increased vigilance is required in their clinical use, especially in patients with high sensitivity to nickel.
Selecting the most biocompatible orthodontic implant available on the market may be a major challenge, given the wide array of orthodontic devices currently available on the market. The latest scientific data have suggested that in vitro evaluations using oral cell lines provide reliable data regarding the toxicity of residual particles released by different types of orthodontic devices. In this regard, the in vitro biocompatibility of three different commercially available implants (stainless steel and titanium-based implants) was assessed. METHODS: As an in vitro model, human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) were employed to evaluate the cellular morphology, cell viability, and cytotoxicity by means of 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assays at 24 h and 72 h post-exposure to test implants. RESULTS: The results correlate the composition and topography of the implant surface with biological experimental evaluations related to directly affected cells (gingival fibroblasts) and toxicological results on blood vessels (hen's egg test-chorioallantoic membrane (HET-CAM) assay). The stainless steel implant exhibits a relative cytotoxicity against HGF cells, while the other two samples induced no significant alterations of HGF cells. CONCLUSION: Among the three test orthodontic implants, the stainless steel implant induced slight cytotoxic effects, thus increased vigilance is required in their clinical use, especially in patients with high sensitivity to nickel.
Authors: Xiuli He; Franz-Xaver Reichl; Stefan Milz; Bernhard Michalke; Xiao Wu; Christoph M Sprecher; Yang Yang; Michael Gahlert; Stefan Röhling; Heinz Kniha; Reinhard Hickel; Christof Högg Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Georgios Romanos; Michael Damouras; Alexander A Veis; Pablo Hess; Frank Schwarz; Silvia Brandt Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 3.932