Article

Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Self Adhesive Composite Resin Cements by Dentin Barrier Test on 3D Pulp Cells.

DDS, PhD, Research Assistant, Selcuk University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Konya, Turkey.
European journal of dentistry 04/2009; 3(2):120-6.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of five self-etch dental composite resin cements on the cell viability of bovine dental papilla-derived cells.
The cytotoxicity of composite resin cements (Rely X Unicem Clicker, 3M ESPE; MaxCem; KERR, Panavia F 2.0; Kuraray, BisCem; Bisco and Bistite II DC; Tokuyama) was analyzed in a dentin barrier test device using three-dimensional (3D) pulp cell cultures. A commercially available cell culture perfusion chamber was separated into two compartments by 500 mum dentin disc. The three dimensional cultures placed on a dentin disk held in place by a special biocompatible stainless-steel holder. Test materials were introduced into the upper compartment in direct contact with the cavity side of the dentin disks according to the manufacturer's instructions. Subsequently, the pulpal part of the perfusion chamber containing the cell cultures was perfused with medium (2 ml/h). After an exposure period of 24 h, the cell survival was determined by the MTT assay. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test.
In dentin barrier test, cell survival was similar with Maxcem and negative control group (P>.05), and all other tested materials were cytotoxic for the three dimensional cell cultures (P>.05).
The significance of composite resin cements is being more important in dentistry. The cytotoxic potencies demonstrated by these materials might be of clinical relevance. Some composite resin cements include biologically active ingredients and may modify pulp cell metabolism when the materials are used in deep cavities or directly contact pulp tissue.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
141 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of fixed orthodontic treatment with three different light-cured orthodontic bonding composites by analyzing micronucleus (MN) formation in the buccal mucosa during a 6-month period.
    Korean journal of orthodontics. 05/2014; 44(3):128-35.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the cytotoxicity of eugenol-containing and eugenol-free temporary luting cements. For cytotoxicity testing, bovine pulp-derived cells transfected with Simian virus 40 Large T antigen were exposed to extracts of eugenol-containing (Rely X Temp E) and eugenol-free (Provicol, PreVISION CEM, and Rely X Temp NE) temporary luting cements for 24 h. The cytotoxicity of the same materials was also evaluated in a dentin barrier test device using three-dimensional cell cultures of bovine pulp-derived cells. The results of the cytotoxicity studies with two-dimensional cultures of bovine dental pulp-derived cells revealed that cell survival with the extracts of Rely X Temp E, Provicol, PreVISION CEM, and Rely X Temp NE was 89.1%, 84.9%, 92.3%, and 66.8%, respectively. Rely X Temp NE and Provicol showed cytotoxic effects on bovine dental pulp-derived cells (P < 0.05). The results of the dentin barrier test revealed that cell survival with the above-mentioned temporary cement was 101.5%, 91.9%, 93.5%, and 90.6%, respectively. None of the temporary luting cements significantly reduced cell survival compared with the negative control in the dentin barrier test (P > 0.05). Biologically active materials released from temporary luting cements may not influence the dentine-pulp complex if the residual dentine layer is at least 0.5 mm thick.
    BioMed research international. 01/2013; 2013:910459.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Resin cements, regardless of their biocompatibility, have been widely used in restorative dentistry during the recent years. These cements contain hydroxy ethyl methacrylate (HEMA) molecules which are claimed to penetrate into dentinal tubules and may affect dental pulp. Since tooth preparation for metal ceramic restorations involves a large surface of the tooth, cytotoxicity of these cements would be more important in fixed prosthodontic treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare the cytotoxicity of two resin cements (Panavia F2 and Rely X Plus) versus zinc phosphate cement (Harvard) using rat L929-fibroblasts in vitro. In this experimental study, ninety hollow glass cylinders (internal diameter 5-mm, height 2-mm) were made and divided into three groups. Each group was filled with one of three experimental cements; Harvard Zinc Phosphate cement, Panavia F2 resin cement and Rely X Plus resin cement. L929- Fibroblast were passaged and subsequently cultured in 6-well plates of 5×10(5) cells each. The culture medium was RPMI_ 1640. All samples were incubated in CO2. Using enzyme-linked immune-sorbent assay (ELISA) and (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2, 5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) (MTT) assay, the cytotoxicity of the cements was investigated at 1 hour, 24 hours and one week post exposure. Statistical analyses were performed via two-way ANOVA and honestly significant difference (HSD) Tukey tests. This study revealed significant differences between the three cements at the different time intervals. Harvard cement displayed the greatest cytotoxicity at all three intervals. After 1 hour Panavia F2 showed the next greatest cytotoxicity, but after 24-hours and oneweek intervals Rely X Plus showed the next greatest cytotoxicity. The results further showed that cytotoxicity decreased significantly in the Panavia F2 group with time (p<0.005), cytotoxicity increased significantly in the Rely X Plus group with time (p<0.001), and the Harvard cement group failed to showed no noticeable change in cytotoxicity with time. Although this study has limitations, it provides evidence that Harvard zinc phosphate cement is the most cytotoxic product and Panavia F2 appears to be the least cytotoxic cement over time.
    Cell Journal 01/2011; 13(3):163-168. · 0.23 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
4 Downloads
Available from