Biocompatibility Evaluation of Dental Luting Cements Using Cytokine Released from Human Oral Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes

Abstract

Dental luting cements are commonly used in dentistry for cementation of prosthetic restoration. Many previous studies focused on the measurement of the cell viability as the method of cytotoxicity evaluation during biocompatibility study for the material. In this study, the biocompatibility of various dental luting cements were evaluated using the new method of cytokine release measurement in order to better simulate inflammatory reactions in animal or clinical model using two different oral cells; immortalized human gingival fibroblast and immortalized human oral keratinocytes. Cells were exposed to extractions of various commercially available dental luting cements for different durations. Cytokines of IL-1α and IL-8 were measured from the supernatants of the cells and the results were then compared to the conventional MTT viability test. The result from the conventional cell viability study showed a relatively simple and straight forward indication that only one of the dental luting cements tested in this study was cytotoxic with increasing duration of exposure for both cells. Meanwhile, the result from the cytokine measurement study was much more complex at the time point they were measured, type of cells used for the study and the type of cytokines measured, all of which influenced the interpretation of the results. Hence, the better understanding of the cytokine release would be required for the application in biocompatibility evaluation.

Cytotoxic effects of different self-adhesive resin cements: Cell viability and induction of apoptosis

“…After 72 h of exposure, RU exhibited slight cytotoxicity compared to the negative control in all three testing methods (P < .05). Kwon et al 33 found that RU showed a slight reduction in cell viability following a short duration of exposure (1.5-, 3-, and 6 h) and it maintained the cell viability in long-term (72 h), which was consistent with the present study. A transdentinal cytotoxicity study revealed that RU exhibited less cytotoxicity than a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC, RelyX Luting 2) and a conventional resin cement (RelyX ARC), and that the cell viability of RU was similar to the negative control group.…”

“…31 In agreement with our findings, other researchers also reported elevating cytotoxic effects with increasing exposure time to SARCs. [32][33][34] In a recent study, the cytotoxic effects of RU and BisCem (Bisco Inc.) SARCs on NIH/3T3 cells were examined, and it was detected that more cytotoxicity was encountered after 7 days of exposure than at the end of 24 h. 19 Besides, Pagano et al 35 reported that the cytotoxicity risk of a material was strongly related with the contact time, in agreement with the present study. Therefore, it may be suggested that resinbased restorative materials should be tested in both shortand long-term exposure periods.…”

“…37 Kurt et al 37 reported that RU caused oxidative stress, DNA damage, and cytotoxicity compared to the negative control group. In contrast, RU did not show considerable cytotoxicity in other studies 6,33,36 as well as in the present investigation. Although a high biocompatibility of RU has been attributed to the absence of HEMA in its chemical composition, D'Alpino et al also reported that polymerized RU samples released HEMA.…”

In Vitro Cytotoxicity of Two Categories of Dental Cements

“…Leaching of some ions may cause cell alterations and some molecular mechanisms have been identified as key factors leading to apoptosis and / or pulp necrosis .35Bakopoulou et al (2009) investigated the genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of eluates derived from different types of dental cements on normal cultured human lymphocytes and reported that the released substances such as TEGDMA included in the resin cements' composition were responsible for the cytogenetic effects. (36,37,38) A previous study demonstrated that the cytotoxicity ranking of the most widely used monomers was as follows: Bis-GMA> UDMA>TEGDMA> HEMA>MMA . (39,40) UDMA and inorganic fluoride contents of Duo-Link cement may be responsible for the observed cytotoxic effects.…”

In vitro cytotoxicity assessment of the 3D printed polymer based epoxy resin intended for use in dentistry

“…To ensure а successful clinical use of materials in dentistry, it is necessary to have information about their physical, chemical, mechanical and biological properties. These properties depend not only on the chemical structure of the material and production technology but also on the behavior of materials in changeable conditions prevailing in the oral cavity 17,18 . Dental materials and implants have special requirements such as nontoxic, non-allergic and noncancerous effects, all of which involve chemically and physically stable material 17,19 .…”