Title
Author
DOI
Article Type
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Article Menu
Export Article
More by Authors Links
Article Data
- Views 742
- Dowloads 195
Original Research
Open AccessComparison of Cytotoxicity of New Nanohybrid Composite, Giomer,
Glass Ionomer and Silver Reinforced Glass Ionomer using Human
Gingival Fibroblast Cell Line
Comparison of Cytotoxicity of New Nanohybrid Composite, Giomer, Glass Ionomer and Silver Reinforced Glass Ionomer using Human Gingival Fibroblast Cell Line
- Fatemeh Koohpeima1
- Mohammad Javad Mokhtari2,*,
- Maryam Doozandeh1
- Zahra Jowkar1
- Fatemeh Yazdanshenas1
1Department of Operative Dentistry, Biomaterial Research Center, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2Department of Biology, Zarghan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zarghan, Iran.
DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.5.368 Vol.41,Issue 5,September 2017 pp.368-373
Published: 01 September 2017
*Corresponding Author(s): Mohammad Javad Mokhtari E-mail: mj.mokhtari@zariau.ac.ir
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Biocompatibility, HGF, MTT Assay, Restorative Dental Material
Cite and Share
Fatemeh Koohpeima,Mohammad Javad Mokhtari,Maryam Doozandeh,Zahra Jowkar,Fatemeh Yazdanshenas. Comparison of Cytotoxicity of New Nanohybrid Composite, Giomer, Glass Ionomer and Silver Reinforced Glass Ionomer using Human Gingival Fibroblast Cell Line. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2017. 41(5);368-373.
References
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.
Abstracted / indexed in
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.
Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.
Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.
JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.
Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.
BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.
Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.
Submission Turnaround Time
Conferences
Top