Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Elastomeric Impression Materials Using Different Fibroblasts Cell Lines

  • Kwon, Jae-Sung (Department and Research Institute of Dental Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Kyoung-Nam (Department and Research Institute of Dental Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2014.11.04
  • Accepted : 2014.12.16
  • Published : 2014.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Current common method of cytotoxicity evaluation for elastomeric impression materials use animal based cell lines, which the clinical relevance has been often questioned. Hence, the purpose of this study was to examine the difference in results with both human based and animal based fibroblast cell line. Materials and Methods: Three types of fibroblast cells were used in this study; conventional mouse fibroblasts of L929, human gingival fibroblasts (HGF-1), and immortalized human oral fibrobalsts (hTERT-hNOF). Test on extract and test by direct contact using different commercially available elastomeric impression materials were carried out according to the international standards. Result: There was significant difference in cell viability between types of fibroblasts cell used, where HGF-1 showed highest cell viability and L929 the lowest. Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, careful consideration must be given when selecting the cells and interpreting the results for cytotoxicity evaluation of elastomeric impression materials, where use of human based cell lines such as hTERT-hNOF would be appropriate for both ease of cytotoxicity test and clinical relevance.

Keywords

References

  1. Brown D, Clarke RL, Curtis RV, Hatton PV, Ireland AJ, McCabe JF, Nicholson JW, Setcos JC, Sherriff M, Strang R, Van Noort R, Watts DC, Wood D. Dental materials: 1994 literature review. J Dent. 1996; 24: 153-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(95)00103-4
  2. Coppi C, Paolinelli Devincenzi C, Bortolini S, Consolo U, Tiozzo R. A new generation of sterile and radiopaque impression materials: an in vitro cytotoxicity study. J Biomater Appl. 2007; 22: 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328206071928
  3. Dahl BL, Hensten-Pettersen A, Lyberg T. Assessment of adverse reactions to prosthodontic materials. J Oral Rehabil. 1990; 17: 279-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1990.tb00009.x
  4. Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practitioners. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 86: 203-9. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.117056
  5. Vajrabhaya L, Sithisarn P. Multilayer and monolayer cell cultures in a cytotoxicity assay of root canal sealers. Int Endod J. 1997; 30: 141-4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.1997.00056.x
  6. Kwon JS, Lee SB, Kim CK, Kim KN. Modified cytotoxicity evaluation of elastomeric impression materials while polymerizing with reduced exposure time. Acta Odontol Scand. 2012; 70: 597-602. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2011.641127
  7. Koulaouzidou EA, Papazisis KT, Economides NA, Beltes P, Kortsaris AH. Antiproliferative effect of mineral trioxide aggregate, zinc oxide-eugenol cement, and glass-ionomer cement against three fibroblastic cell lines. J Endod. 2005; 31: 44-6.
  8. Illeperuma RP, Park YJ, Kim JM, Bae JY, Che ZM, Son HK, Han MR, Kim KM, Kim J. Immortalized gingival fibroblasts as a cytotoxicity test model for dental materials. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2012; 23: 753-62.
  9. Kwon JS, Illeperuma RP, Kim J, Kim KM, Kim KN. Cytotoxicity evaluation of zinc oxide-eugenol and non-eugenol cements using different fibroblast cell lines. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014; 72: 64-70. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2013.798871
  10. ISO [Internet]. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10993-5:2009. Biological evaluation of medical devices--part 5: tests for in vitro cytotoxicity [cited 2014 Aug 29]. Available from: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=36406
  11. ISO [Internet]. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. ISO 7405:2008. Denitstry--evaluation of biocompatbility of medical devices used in dentistry [cited 2014 Aug 29]. Available from: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catolgue_ics/catologue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=38059
  12. Sydiskis RJ, Gerhardt DE. Cytotoxicity of impression materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1993; 69: 431-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90193-R
  13. Chen SY, Chen CC, Kuo HW. Cytotoxicity of dental impression materials. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2002; 69: 350-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-002-0069-7
  14. Schedle A, Samorapoompichit P, Rausch-Fan XH, Franz A, Fureder W, Sperr WR, Sperr W, Ellinger A, Slavicek R, Boltz-Nitulescu G, Valent P. Response of L-929 fibroblasts, human gingival fibroblasts, and human tissue mast cells to various metal cations. J Dent Res. 1995; 74: 1513-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345950740081301
  15. Roberta T, Federico M, Federica B, Antonietta CM, Sergio B, Ugo C. Study of the potential cytotoxicity of dental impression materials. Toxicol In Vitro. 2003; 17: 657-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-2333(03)00107-3
  16. Ciapetti G, Granchi D, Stea S, Savarino L, Verri E, Gori A, Savioli F, Montanaro L. Cytotoxicity testing of materials with limited in vivo exposure is affected by the duration of cell-material contact. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998; 42: 485-90. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(19981215)42:4<485::AID-JBM2>3.0.CO;2-7
  17. Pissiotis E, Spangberg LS. Toxicity of Pulpispad using four different cell types. Int Endod J. 1991; 24: 249-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1991.tb01150.x
  18. Kasten FH, Felder SM, Gettleman L, Alchediak T. A model culture system with human gingival fibroblasts for evaluating the cytotoxicity of dental materials. In Vitro. 1982; 18: 650-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02796398
  19. Al-Nazhan S, Spangberg L. Morphological cell changes due to chemical toxicity of a dental material: an electron microscopic study on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts and L929 cells. J Endod. 1990; 16: 129-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81589-X
  20. Huang FM, Tai KW, Chou MY, Chang YC. Cytotoxicity of resin-, zinc oxide-eugenol-, and calcium hydroxide-based root canal sealers on human periodontal ligament cells and permanent V79 cells. Int Endod J. 2002; 35: 153-8. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00459.x
  21. ISO [Internet]. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10993-1:2009. Biological evaluation of medical devices--part 1: evaluation and testing within a risk management process [cited 2014 Aug 29]. Available from: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=44908
  22. Eldeniz AU, Mustafa K, Orstavik D, Dahl JE. Cytotoxicity of new resin-, calcium hydroxideand silicone-based root canal sealers on fibroblasts derived from human gingiva and L929 cell lines. Int Endod J. 2007; 40: 329-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01211.x