Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of contemporary glass-ionomer cements on mouse fibroblasts and human dental pulp cells

  • Original Scientific Article
  • Published:
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the cytotoxic effects of different types of contemporary GICs on human dental pulp cell (hDPCs) and mouse fibroblast (L929) cultures.

Methods

Three high-viscosity GICs (HVGIC; GC Equia Forte, Riva Self Cure, IonoStar Plus), three resin-modified GICs (RMGIC; Photac Fil, Riva Light Cure, Ionolux), and a metal-reinforced GIC (MRGIC; Riva Silver) were investigated. Twelve disc-shaped specimens of each material were prepared and stored in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium (DMEM). L929 fibroblasts and DPCs were then cultured in 96-well plates. Uncultured DMEM was used as a negative control. Mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity (MTT) assays were performed to detect cell viability after 24, 48, and 72 h. Data were analysed using Mann–Whitney U and Friedman tests followed by a Bonferroni-corrected Wilcoxon signed rank test, with the statistical significance set at P < 0.05.

Results

Toxicity levels varied between the cell-culture systems. MTT assays of L929 cells showed significant differences in percentages of viable cells, as follows: Riva Self Cure = Riva Silver > GC Equia Forte > IonoStar Plus = Riva Light Cure = Photac Fil > Ionolux. MTT assays of DPCs showed the percentages of viable cells to be significantly lower for the Ionolux group when compared to the other GICs, which did not differ significantly from one another. With the exception of Ionolux, none of the other GICs tested showed any toxicity, and in fact, they all induced cell proliferation (> 100% cell viability).

Conclusions

Although the degree of toxicity varied between the two cell-culture systems investigated, all the GICs tested, with the exception of Ionolux, performed favorably with regard to cytotoxicity (> 100% cell viability in both cell systems).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed HM, Omar NS, Luddin N, Saini R, Saini D. Cytotoxicity evaluation of a new fast set highly viscous conventional glass ionomer cement with L929 fibroblast cell line. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14:406–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Aranha AMF, Giro EMA, Souza PPC, Hebling J, de Souza Costa CA. Effect of curing regime on the cytotoxicity of resin-modified glass-ionomer lining cements applied to an odontoblast-cell line. Dent Mater. 2006;22:864–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arndt V. Completing a direct posterior restoration using Ionofil Molar AC Quick immediately packable glass ionomer. In: Dental Product Report. 2002. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-260753781.html. Accessed Dec 2002.

  • Chang HH, Guo MK, Kasten FH, et al. Stimulation of glutathione depletion ROS production and cell cycle arrest of dental pulp cells and gingival epithelial cells by HEMA. Biomaterials. 2005;26:745–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa CA, Vaerten MA, Edwards CA, Hanks CT. Cytotoxic effects of current dental adhesive systems on immortalized odontoblast cell line MDPC-23. Dent Mater. 1999;15:434–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa CA, Hebling J, Hanks CT. Current status of pulp therapy with dentin adhesive systems. A review. Dent Mater. 2000;16:188–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa CAS, Giro EM, do Nascimento AB, Teixeira HM, Hebling J. Short-term evaluation of the pulp-dentin complex response to a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement and a bonding agent applied in deep cavities. Dent Mater. 2003;19:739–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson CL. Advances in glass-ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2006;14:3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hanks CT. In vitro cytotoxicity of five glass-ionomer cements. Biomaterials. 2003;24:3853–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaintantzopoulou MD, Willis GP, Kafrawy AH. Pulp reactions to light-cured glass ionomer cements. Am J Dent. 1994;7:39–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gao W, Smales RJ. Fluoride release/uptake of conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cement and compomer. J Dent. 2001;29:301–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Geurtsen W, Lehmann F, Spahl W, Leyhausen G. Cytotoxicity of 35 dental resin composite monomers/additives in permanent 3T3 and three human primary fibroblast cultures. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;41:474–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Geursten W. Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2000;11:333–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanks CT, Anderson M, Craig RG. Cytotoxic effects of dental cements on two cell culture systems. J Oral Pathol. 1981;10:101–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hensten-Pettersen A, Helgeland K. Sensitivity of different human cell line in the biologic evaluation of dental resin-based restorative materials. Scand J Dent Res. 1981;89:102–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hotz P, McLean JW, Sced I, Wilson AD. The bonding of glass-ionomer cements to metal and tooth substrates. Br Dent J. 1977;142:41–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huang FM, Chang YC. Cytotoxicity of resin-based restorative materials on human pulp cell cultures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;94:361–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kılıç Süloğlu A, Selmanoğlu G, Yılmaz Ş, Canpınar H. Comparison of phototoxic effects of hypericin-mediated photodynamic therapy in HT-29 and Caco-2 colon cancer cells. Turk J Biol. 2016;40:1202–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lan WH, Lan WC, Wang TM, et al. Cytotoxicity of conventional and modified glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent. 2003;28:251–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li F, Weir MD, Chen J, Xu HH. Comparison of quaternary ammonium-containing with nano-silver-containing adhesive in antibacterial properties and cytotoxicity. Dent Mater. 2013;29:450–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lutfi AN, Kannan TP, Fazliah MN, Jamaruddin MA, Saidi J. Proliferative activity of cells from remaining dental pulp in response to treatment with dental materials. Aust Dent J. 2010;55:79–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marczuk-Kolada G, Luczaj-Cepowicz E, Pawinska M, Holownia A. Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of selected conventional glass ionomer cements on human gingival fibroblasts. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2017;26:1041–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mickenautsch S, Mount G, Yengopal V. Therapeutic effect of glass ionomers: an overview of evidence. Austr Dent J. 2011;56:10–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moharamzadeh K, Van Noort R, Brook IM, Scutt AM. Cytotoxicity of resin monomers on human gingival fibroblasts and HaCaT keratinocytes. Dent Mater. 2007;23:40–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mount GJ. Clinical performance of glass-ionomers. Biomaterials. 1998;19:573–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mozayeni MA, Milani AS, Marvasti LA, Asgary S. Cytotoxicity of calcium enriched mixture cement compared with mineral trioxide aggregate and intermediate restorative material. Aust Endod J. 2012;38:70–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murray PE, Garcia Godoy C, Garcia Godoy F. How is the biocompatibility of dental biomaterials evaluated? Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007;12:E258–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B. The biocompability of resin-modified glass ionomer cements for dentistry. Dent Mater. 2008;24:1702–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer G, Anstice HM, Pearson GJ. The effect of curing regime on the release of hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) from resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Dent. 1999;27:303–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Park MV, Neigh AM, Vermeulen JP, et al. The effect of particle size on the cytotoxicity, inflammation, developmental toxicity and genotoxicity of silver nano-particles. Biomaterials. 2011;32:9810–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rimondini L, Mele S. Stem cell technologies for tissue regeneration in dentistry. Minerva Stomatol. 2009;58:483–500.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmalz G. Concepts in biocompatibility testing of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest. 1997;1:154–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid-Schwap M, Franz A, König F, et al. Cytotoxicity of four categories of dental cements. Dent Mater. 2009;25:360–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J. 2011;56:23–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stanislawski L, Daniau X, Lauti A, Goldberg M. Factors responsible for pulp cell cytotoxicity induced by resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;48:277–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taira M, Nakao H, Matsumoto T, Takahashi J. Cytotoxic effect of methyl methacrylate on 4 cultured fibroblasts. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13:311–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tarim B, Hafez AA, Cox CF. Pulpal response to a resin-modified glass-ionomer material on nonexposed and exposed monkey pulps. Quint Int. 1998;29:535–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie D, Brantley BM, Culbertson G, Wang G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2000;16:129–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Duinen RN, Kleverlaan CJ, de Gee AJ, Werner A, Feilzer AJ. Early and long-term wear of “fast-set” conventional glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater. 2005;21:716–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vega-Avila E, Pugsley MK. An overview of colorimetric assay methods used to assess survival or proliferation of mammalian cells. Proc West Pharmacol Soc. 2011;54:10–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Volarevic V, Al-Qahtani A, Arsenijevic N, Pajovic S, Lukic ML. Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra) and IL-1Ra producing mesenchymal stem cells as modulators of diabetogenesis. Autoimmunity. 2010;43:255–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yap AU, Pek YS, Cheang P. Physico-mechanical properties of a fast-set highly viscous GIC restorative. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang K, Cheng L, Imazato S, et al. Effects of dual antibacterial agents MDPB and nano-silver in primer on microcosm biofilm, cytotoxicity and dentine bond properties. J Dent. 2013;41:464–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University, Birlik Mah. Bahçeler Cad. No: 5 Esenler, Istanbul, Turkey

    S. Ersahan

  2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Gulhane Dentistry Faculty, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey

    E. A. Oktay, F. A. Sabuncuoglu, S. Karaoglanoglu & N. Aydın

  3. Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

    A. K. Suloglu

Authors
  1. S. Ersahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. A. Oktay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. A. Sabuncuoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Karaoglanoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Aydın
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. K. Suloglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Ersahan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors affirm that they do not presently have, nor have they had in the past, any direct financial interest in the subject or materials discussed in this manuscript, or any affiliation with any commercial organisation with any such financial interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ersahan, S., Oktay, E.A., Sabuncuoglu, F.A. et al. Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of contemporary glass-ionomer cements on mouse fibroblasts and human dental pulp cells. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 21, 321–328 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00481-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00481-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation