Comparison of Cytotoxicity of New Nanohybrid Composite, Giomer, Glass Ionomer and Silver Reinforced Glass Ionomer using Human Gingival Fibroblast Cell Line

The objective of this study was to investigate the cytotoxic effects of new nanohybrid composite, giomer, conventional and resin modified and silver reinforced glass ionomer cements and compare the biocompatibility of these dental materials in cell culture. Study design: Five cylindrical specimens were made of each material, using a mold (2mm. thick and 5 mm in diameter). For HGF, cells were cultured in RPMI-1640 medium. After attaining 80% confluence, cells were treated with different doses of five tested materials for 24h. Then cell cytotoxicity was assessed using MTT assay. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test. Results: The materials evaluated on HGF cells, showed significantly more cytotoxicity in silver reinforced glass ionomer but nanohybrid composite shows mild cytotoxic effect. However, giomer shows no significant cytotoxicity and conventional and resin modified glass ionomer enhance cell proliferation. Conclusions: Silver reinforced glass ionomer induced a significant high cytotoxic effect over a wide range of concentration. Therefore, higher attention should be focused on this restorative dental material, which should be chosen for further investigations.

Biocompatibility, HGF, MTT Assay, Restorative Dental Material

1. Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials?– Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials. 2009;3(1):76-96.

2. Shenoy A. Is it the end of the road for dental amalgam? A critical review. J Conserv Dent. 2008;11(3):99-107.

3. Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Clinical relevance of laboratory fatigue studies. Journal of dentistry. 1994;22(2):97-102.

4. Taha NA, Ghanim A, Tavangar MS. Comparison of Mechanical Properties of Resin Composites with Resin Modified Glass Ionomers. Journal of Dental Biomaterials. 2015;2(2):47-53 %@ 2383-2398X.

5. Nagaraja Upadhya P, Kishore G. Glass ionomer cement: the different generations. Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2005;18(2):158-165.

6. Cho SY, Cheng AC. A review of glass ionomer restorations in the primary dentition. Journal (Canadian Dental Association). 1999;65(9):491-495.

7. Dionysopoulos D. The effect of fluoride-releasing restorative materials on inhibition of secondary caries formation. Fluoride. 2014;47(3):258-265 %@ 0015-4725.

8. Manhart J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hickel R. Direct posterior restorations: clinical results and new developments. Dental clinics of North America. 2002;46(2):303-339.

9. Selimovic-Dragas M, Huseinbegovic A, Kobaslija S, Hatibovic-Kofman S. A comparison of the in vitro cytotoxicity of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements. Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences / Udruzenje basicnih mediciniskih znanosti = Association of Basic Medical Sciences. 2012;12(4):273-278.

10. Mousavinasab SM, Meyers I. Fluoride release by glass ionomer cements, compomer and giomer. Dental research journal. 2009;6(2):75-81.

11. Kimyai S, Mohammadi N, Oskoee PA, et al. Effects of surface treatments of conventional glass-ionomer on shear bond strength to giomer. Dental research journal. 2012;9(6):700-705.

12. Morales-Chavez MC, Nualart-Grollmus ZC. Retention of a resin-based sealant and a glass ionomer used as a fissure sealant in children with special needs. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry. 2014;6(5):e551-555.

13. Jyothi K, Annapurna S, Kumar AS, Venugopal P, Jayashankara C. Clinical evaluation of giomer- and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class V noncarious cervical lesions: An in vivo study. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14(4):409-413.

14. Gordan VV, Blaser PK, Watson RE, et al. A clinical evaluation of a giomer restorative system containing surface prereacted glass ionomer filler: results from a 13-year recall examination. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939). 2014;145(10):1036-1043.

15. Madhyastha PS, Naik DG, Kotian R, Padma D, Srikant N, Bhat KM. Evaluation of Cytotoxicity of Silorane and Methacrylate based Dental Composites using Human Gingival Fibroblasts. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(1):Zc05-08.

16. McParland H, Warnakulasuriya S. Oral lichenoid contact lesions to mercury and dental amalgam—a review. Journal of biomedicine & biotechnology. 2012;2012:589569.

17. Mousavinasab SM. Biocompatibility of composite resins. Dental research journal. 2011;8(Suppl 1):S21-29.

18. Li F, Weir MD, Chen J, Xu HH. Comparison of quaternary ammonium-containing with nano-silver-containing adhesive in antibacterial properties and cytotoxicity. Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials. 2013;29(4):450-461.

19. Salehi S, Gwinner F, Mitchell JC, Pfeifer C, Ferracane JL. Cytotoxicity of resin composites containing bioactive glass fillers. Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials. 2015;31(2):195-203.

20. Tamilselvam S, Divyanand MJ, Neelakantan P. Biocompatibility of a conventional glass ionomer, ceramic reinforced glass ionomer, giomer and resin composite to fibroblasts: in vitro study. The Journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. 2013;37(4):403-406.

21. Mokhtari MJ, Akbarzadeh A, Hashemi M, et al. Cisplatin Induces Up-Regulation of KAI1, a Metastasis Suppressor Gene, in MCF-7 Breast Cancer Cell Line. Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research. 2012;11(4):523- 529 %@ 1596-9827.

22. Mokhtari MJ, Motamed N, Shokrgozar MA. Evaluation of silibinin on the viability, migration and adhesion of the human prostate adenocarcinoma (PC-3) cell line. Cell biology international. 2008;32(8):888-892.

23. Schwengberg S, Bohlen H, Kleinsasser N, et al. In vitro embryotoxicity assessment with dental restorative materials. Journal of dentistry. 2005;33(1):49-55.

24. Gupta SK, Saxena P, Pant VA, Pant AB. Release and toxicity of dental resin composite. Toxicology international. 2012;19(3):225-234.

25. Choudhary K, Nandlal B. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of nano-hydroxyapatite incorporated glass ionomer cement and conventional glass ionomer cement on dense synthetic hydroxyapatite disk: An in vitro study. Indian journal of dental research : official publication of Indian Society for Dental Research. 2015;26(2):170-175.

26. Pourabbas R, Farajnia S, Kimya S, Mohammadnejad L, Johnson A, Nejatian T. In vitro assessment of cytotoxicity of giomer on human gingival fibroblasts. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2009;8(20 %@ 1684-5315).

27. Al-Sabek F, Shostad S, Kirkwood KL. Preferential attachment of human gingival fibroblasts to the resin ionomer Geristore. Journal of endodontics. 2005;31(3):205-208.

28. Huang FM, Tai KW, Chou MY, Chang YC. Resinous perforation-repair materials inhibit the growth, attachment, and proliferation of human gingival fibroblasts. Journal of endodontics. 2002;28(4):291-294.

29. Nayak RS, Valecha S, Pasha A, Mamatha J, Khanna B, Shafiuddin B. A Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of New Nanofilled Composite and Nano-Ionomer Restorative Materials with Traditional Adhesive Material for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding: An In Vitro Study. Journal of International Oral Health. 2015;7(10):70 %@ 0976-1799.

30. Cramer NB, Stansbury JW, Bowman CN. Recent advances and developments in composite dental restorative materials. Journal of dental research. 2011;90(4):402-416.

31. Archegas LRP, Rached RN, Ignacio SA, Vasconcelos ECd, Ramos DT, Souza EMd. Identification and quantification of monomers released from dental composites using HPLC. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. 2009;52(4):855-862 %@ 1516-8913.

32. Gociu M, Patroi D, Prejmerean C, et al. Biology and cytotoxicity of dental materials: an in vitro study. Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie. 2013;54(2):261-265.

33. Theodore M, Harald O, Edward J. Sturdevant’s art and science of operative dentistry. Mosby. 2006;5:807-840.

34. Jiao Y, Ma S, Wang Y, Li J, Shan L, Chen J. Epigallocatechin-3-Gallate Reduces Cytotoxic Effects Caused by Dental Monomers: A Hypothesis. Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2015;21:3197-3202.

35. Samyuktha V, Ravikumar P, Nagesh B, Ranganathan K, Jayaprakash T, Sayesh V. Cytotoxicity evaluation of root repair materials in human-cultured periodontal ligament fibroblasts. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17(5):467-470.

36. Moharamzadeh K, Brook IM, Van Noort R. Biocompatibility of resinbased dental materials. Materials. 2009;2(2):514-548.

37. McCulloch CA. Origins and functions of cells essential for periodontal repair: the role of fibroblasts in tissue homeostasis. Oral diseases. 1995;1(4):271-278.