The improvement of biocompatibility of adhesives
- 2 Downloads
The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the effects of resveratrol (RES) addition on the cytotoxicity and microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of different adhesives.
Materials and methods
Five self-etching adhesives (G-aenial Bond-GC, Optibond All in One-Kerr, Gluma Self Etch-Kulzer, Clearfil S3 Bond-Kuraray, and Nova Compo-B Plus-Imicryl) were tested. They were applied to L-929 cell culture by the extract method. In the test groups, 0.5 μM RES (Sigma-Aldrich) was added into the medium. Cell viability was assessed by MTT assay after 24 h. Human extracted third molars were used for μTBS test (n = 7). The adhesives with or without 0.5 μM RES addition were applied on dentin surfaces. A composite build-up was constructed. Then, the specimens were sectioned into multiple beams with the non-trimming version of the microtensile test and subjected to microtensile forces. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test (p ˂ 0.05).
The extracts of all adhesives decreased the cell viability. However, RES addition increased the cell viability in all groups (p ˂ 0.05). RES addition did not cause any decrease in μTBS values of the adhesives compared to baseline. Optibond All in One showed the highest μTBS after RES addition. It was followed by Clerafil S3 Bond and Nova Compo-B Plus. No difference was determined between the Optibond All in One and Clearfil S3 Bond. There was difference between Optibond All in One and Nova Compo-B Plus (p ˂ 0.05).
RES addition may improve the biocompatibility without causing negative influence on μTBS of the adhesives.
RES addition has clinical applicable potential to overcome the adverse biocompatibility of adhesives.
KeywordsAdhesive Antioxidant Cell viability Microtensile bond strength Resveratrol
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Mukherjee S, Dudley JI, Das DK (2010) Dose-dependency of resveratrol in providing health benefits. Dose Response 8:478–500. https://doi.org/10.2203/dose-response.09-015.Mukherjee CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 10.Schubert A, Ziegler C, Bernhard A, Bürgers R, Miosge N (2018, 2018) Cytotoxic effects to mouse and human gingival fibroblasts of a nanohybrid ormocer versus dimethacrylate-based composites. Clin Oral Investig. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2419-9
- 11.Gescher AJ, Steward WP (2003) Relationship between mechanisms, bioavailibility, and preclinical chemopreventive efficacy of resveratrol: a conundrum. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 12(10):953–957Google Scholar
- 21.Krifka S, Spagnuolo G, Schmalz G, Schweikl H (2013) A review of adaptive mechanisms in cell responses towards oxidative stress caused by dental resin monomers. Biomaterials 34(19):4555–4563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.03.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A et al (2007) Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 28(26):3757–3785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar