In vitro evaluation of the cytotoxicity of different self-adhesive resin cements

Year 2018, Volume: 35 Issue: 2, 44 - 48, 12.04.2018

Necla Demir , Firdevs Kahvecioğlu , Muhammet Karcı , Hayriye Esra Ülker Nuray Günaydın

https://doi.org/10.17214/gaziaot.330671

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this in
vitro study was to evaluate the cytotoxicity of three different self-adhesive
resin cements.

Materials and
Method:
Standardized test samples (2×5 mm) of adhesive resin cements ICEM (Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany), Nova Resin (Imicryl, Konya,
Turkey) and Clearfil SA
Cement (Kuraray, Okuyama, Japan) were prepared according to the
manufacturers’ instructions. Bovine dental
pulp-derived cells (Clonal SV40) were seeded into the wells of a 96 well-plate,
and incubated in MEM Alpha (Gibco Invitrogen) supplemented with 20% fetal bovine
serum, 5% penicillin/streptomycin, 1% geneticin in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO₂. The test samples were immersed in the
growth medium for 24 h and the extracts were applied onto the cells. A group of
cells was immersed in the growth medium that was not exposed to the test
materials, and was assigned as negative control. The cell viability was
determined by enzyme activity tests at the end of a 24 h treatment period. The
data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference between
the cell viability of the negative control group and ICEM, Clearfil SA and Nova
Resin Cement groups (p>0.05). There was also no statistically significant
difference among the self-adhesive resin cement groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion: In this in vitro
study, self-adhesive resin cements were found to have no significant cytotoxic
effects on two dimensional dental bovine pulp cells.

Keywords

Cell culture, cytotoxicity, resin cement

Kendinden bağlanabilen farklı adeziv rezin simanların sitotoksisitelerinin in vitro olarak değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç:
Bu çalışmanın amacı, klinikte kullanılan kendinden bağlanabilen üç farklı
adeziv rezin simanın sitotoksisitesinin değerlendirilmesidir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmamızda üretici firmanın önerileri dikkate alınarak silindirik
şekilli (2x5mm) adeziv rezin siman test örnekleri hazırlandı ICEM (Heraeus
Kulzer, Hanau, Almanya), Nova Resin (Imicryl, Konya, Turkey) ve Clearfil SA
Cement (Kuraray, Okuyama, Japonya). Sığır pulpasından elde edilmiş hücreler
(Clonal SV40) 96-kuyucuklu hücre kültürü plakları içerisine yerleştirildi ve %20
fetal sığır serumu, %5 penisilin/streptomisin, %1 genetisin içeren MEM Alpha
içerisinde (Gibco Invitrogen) %5 CO2 ortamında, 37°C’de 24 saat enkübe edildi.
Test örnekleri hazırlanan besi ortamı içerisinde 24 saat bekletildi ve
ekstraktlar hücreler üzerine uygulandı. İçerisinde test materyali ekstrakte
edilmemiş besi ortamına maruz bırakılan hücreler negatif kontrol grubu kabul
edildi. Hücre canlılığı 24 saat muamele sonunda enzim aktivitesi ile
değerlendirildi. Veriler one-way ANOVA ile analiz edildi.

Bulgular:
ICEM, Clearfil SA ve Nova Resin siman gruplarının canlılık yüzdeleri ile
negatif kontrol grubunun hücre canlılık oranları arasında istatistiksel olarak
anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p>0.05). Aynı zamanda rezin siman grupları birbiri
ile karşılaştırıldığında istatiksel olarak gruplar arasında yine anlamlı fark
bulunmadı (p>0.05).

Sonuç: Bu in vitro çalışmada iki-boyutlu sığır dental
pulpa hücreleri üzerinde test edilen kendinden bağlanabilen adeziv rezin
simanların önemli derecede sitotoksik etki göstermedikleri tespit edildi.

Keywords

Hücre kültürü, rezin simanı, sitotoksisite

References

• Goldstein RE. Esthetics in dentistry, 2nd edn. London: BC Decker Inc; 2014.
• Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R. Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Am J Dent 2000;13:60-76.
• Silva e Souza MH, Carneiro KG, Lobato MF, Silva e Souza P de A, de Goes MF. Adhesive systems: important aspects related to their composition and clinical use. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18:207-14.
• Dikicier S. Dişhekimliğinde Adezyon ve Adeziv Rezin Simanlarda Güncel Yaklaşımlar. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2016;14:152-8.
• Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 2007;28:3757-85.
• Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ. Dental luting agents: A review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:280–301.
• Tay FR, Carvalho R, Sano H, Pashley DH. Effect of smear layers on the bonding of self-etching primer to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2000;2:99-116.
• Costa CAS, Hebling J, Hanks CT. Current status of pulp capping with dentin adhesive systems: a review. Dent Mater 2000;16:188–97.
• Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practitioners. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:203-9.
• Atalayın C, Tezel H, Ergucu Z. Rezin Esaslı Dental Materyallerin Sitotoksisitesine Genel Bir Bakış. EÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg 2016;37:47-53.
• Schmalz G. Concepts in biocompatibility testing of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest 1997;1:154-62.
• Schmalz G. Use of cell cultures for toxicity testing of dental materials-advantages and limitations. J Dent 1994;22:6-11.
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10993. Biological evaluation of medical devices-Part 12: Sample preparation and reference materials. Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
• Hanks CT, Wataha JC, Sun Z. In vitro models of biocompatibility: A review. Dent Mater 1996;12:186-93.
• Geurtsen W. Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2000;11:333-55.
• Koohpeima F, Mokhtari MJ, Doozandeh M, Jowkar F, Yazdanshenas F. Comparison of Cytotoxicity of New Nanohybrid Composite, Giomer, Glass Ionomer and Silver Reinforced Glass Ionomer using Human Gingival Fibroblast Cell Line. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;41:368-73.
• Shin H, Ko H, Kim M. Cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of zirconia (Y-TZP) posts and various dental cements. Restor Dent Endod 2016;41:167-75.
• Modena KC, Casas-Apayco LC, Atta MT, Costa CA, Hebling J, Sipert CR, et al. Cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of direct and indirect pulp capping materials. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:544-54.
• Kraus D, Wolfgarten M, Enkling N, Helfgen EH, Frentzen M, Probstmeier R, et al. In-vitro cytocompatibility of dental resin monomers on osteoblast-like cells. J Dent 2017;65:76-82.
• Lee DH, Lima BS, Lee YK, Ahn SJ, Yanga HC. Involvement of oxidative stress in mutagenicity and apoptosis caused by dental resin monomers in cell cultures. Dent Mater 2006;22:1086-92.
• Koliniotou-Koumpia E, Papadimitriou S, Tziafas D, Pulpal responses after application of current adhesive systems to deep cavities. Clin Oral Invest 2007;11:3132-40.
• Schweikl H, Hartmann A, Hiller KA, Spagnuolo G, Bolay C, Brockhoff G, et al. Inhibition of TEGDMA and HEMA-induced genotoxicity and cell cycle arrest by N-acetylcysteine. Dent Mater 2007;23:688-95.
• Ülker E, Tunçdemir T, Erkan Aİ, Malkoç MA, Çobanoğlu N. İki self etch bonding sistemin biouyumluluklarının ve bağlanma dayanımlarının değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2014;24:44-9.
• Nakagawa K, Saita M, Ikeda T, Hirota M, Park W, Lee MC, et al. Biocompatibility of 4-META/MMA-TBB resin used as a dental luting agent. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:114-21.
• Schmalz G, Arenholdt Bindslev D. Biocompatibility of Dental Materials, 1st edn. Berlin: Springer; 2009.
• Ülker HE, Hiller KA, Schweikl H, Seidenader C, Sengun A, Schmalz G. Human and bovine pulp-derived cell reactions to dental resin cements. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:1571-8.