Cytotoxicity of Etch-and-Rinse, Self-Etch, and Universal Dental Adhesive Systems in Fibroblast Cell Line 3T3

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate in fibroblast cultures the direct cytotoxic effects of etch-and-rinse, self-etch, and universal adhesive systems. The sterile glass cover slips (n = 3) were then immersed in culture medium to obtain the eluates for the experimental groups: (1) Adper™ Single Bond 2; (2) Ambar; (3) Adper™ Scotchbond™ Multi-Purpose; (4) Scotchbond™ Universal; (5) Ambar Universal; and (6) OptiBond All-In-One. As a negative control, sterile glass cover slips were immersed in culture medium only. After 24 h, the eluate obtained was applied on fibroblast culture. Cell viability and cell morphology were evaluated by MTT assay and SEM, respectively. Data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests (α = 0.05). All adhesive systems except universal reduced cell viability in 3T3 cells to between 26.04% and 56.57%, and Scotchbond Universal and Ambar Universal reduced cell viability to 2.13% and 3.57%, respectively, when compared to the negative control. Cytoplasmic membrane shrinkage and cell-free areas with residual membrane fragments from dead cells were observed. In conclusion, improvements in universal adhesive system formulations and their mechanisms of action are not accompanied by increased toxicity compared with those in other systems, warranting commitment to the use of these dentin-pulp complexes.

Clinical Outcome of Class II direct composite restorations using total-Cetch versus selective etch adhesives

“…Present study was designed to compare the results of total etch technique with selected etch technique using USPHS criteria. The USPHS criteria was used as it is found to be a reliable method for assessment of various parameters of restorations such as margins integrity, discoloration of margins, caries, post-op sensitivity and shade selection [16][17][18] .…”

“…The results showed that selected etch method produced higher bond strength which is good for good margins of restorations and proper seal of it therefore it is recommended that enamel cavo-surface margins should be etched too before application of self etching method 18 . It is recommended that dentine cavo-surface margins should not be etched before application of self etching method 19 .…”

Cytotoxicity evaluation of eluates from universal adhesives by real-time cell analysis

“…Although there are many researchers studying the cytotoxicity of different generations of dental adhesives 8,16,[62][63][64][65] , studies on the cytotoxicity of universal adhesives are even limited 66,67) . In addition to that, despite the above-mentioned studies, to the authors knowledge, there are no studies that have evaluated the cytotoxicity of universal adhesives using real-time and continuous analysis of cell vitality.…”

“…In addition to that, despite the above-mentioned studies, to the authors knowledge, there are no studies that have evaluated the cytotoxicity of universal adhesives using real-time and continuous analysis of cell vitality. A study investigated cytotoxic effects of universal [ 67) , however, the authors have not provided information about the duration of exposure of the extracts to the cells. The authors concluded that all tested adhesive systems except universal adhesives, reduced cell viability between 26.04 and 56.57%.…”

Cytotoxicity test of 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitic anhydride–based dentine bonding material using acetone solution in dental pulp fibroblast

“…[20] Several research mention that the free monomers of dentine bonding materials are suspected of being one cause of postoperative pain and of teeth getting progressively necrotized. [21] Pupo et al [22] analyzed the metabolic effects of several adhesive materials and revealed that the toxicity of the current adhesive systems varied, they suspected that it was likely related to the level of residual monomers. These free monomers have also been considered capable of damaging fibroblast cells in dentine and pulp tissue.…”