Cytotoxicity, Morphology and Chemical Composition of Two Luting Cements: An in Vitro Study

Farrukh  Said; Faisal  Moeen; Muhammad Talal  Khan; Afsheen  Mansoor; Usman Haider  Uzbek; Mohammad Khursheed  Alam; Ammar Ahmed  Siddiqui

Authors

Farrukh Said
Faisal Moeen
Muhammad Talal Khan
Afsheen Mansoor
Usman Haider Uzbek
Mohammad Khursheed Alam
Ammar Ahmed Siddiqui

Keywords:

Dental Materials, Dental Cements, Zinc Phosphate Cement, Fibroblasts

Abstract

Objective: To assess the cytotoxicity, surface morphology, elemental compositions and chemical characterization of two commonly used luting cement. Material and Methods: The two luting types of cement used were Elite Cement® and Hy-Bond Resiglass®. Freshly mixed (n=6) and set form (n=6) of each cement was placed in medium to obtain extracts. The extract from each sample was exposed to L929 mouse fibroblasts (1x104cells/well). Alamar Blue Assay assessed cell viability. Surface morphology and elemental composition were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy. The chemical characterization was performed by Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. One-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey analysis were conducted to assess results. Results: Hy-Bond Resiglass® was the more cytotoxic of the two types of cement in both freshly mixed (68.10 +5.16; p<0.05) and set state (87.58 +4.86; p<0.05), compared to Elite Cement® both freshly mixed (77.01 +5.45; p<0.05) and set state (89.39 +5.66; p<0.05). Scanning electron microscopy revealed a more irregular and porous structure in Hy-Bond Resiglass® compared to Elite Cement®. Similarly, intense peaks of aluminium, tungsten and fluorine were observed in energy dispersive spectroscopy in Hy-Bond Resiglass. Conclusion: All these three elements (aluminium, tungsten and fluorine) have cytotoxic potential. The Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy revealed the presence of hydroxyethyl methacrylate in Hy-Bond Resiglass®, which has a cytotoxic potential.

References

de la Macorra JC, Pradíes G. Conventional and adhesive luting cements. Clin Oral Investig 2002; 6(4):198-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-002-0184-1

Schmid-Schwap M, Franz A, König F, Bristela M, Lucas T, Piehslinger E, et al. Cytotoxicity of four categories of dental cements. Dent Mater 2009; 25(3):360-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.08.002

Smith DC, Ruse ND. Acidity of glass ionomer cements during setting and its relation to pulp sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc 1986; 112(5):654-7. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1986.0069

Trumpaite-Vanagiene R, Bukelskiene V, Aleksejuniene J, Puriene A, Baltriukiene D, Rutkunas V. Cytotoxicity of commonly used luting cements - an in vitro study. Dent Mater J 2015; 34(3):294-301. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2014-185

Lad PP, Kamath M, Tarale K, Kusugal PB. Practical clinical considerations of luting cements: a review. J Int Oral Health 2014; 6(1):116-20.

Schweikl H, Spagnuolo G, Schmalz G. Genetic and cellular toxicology of dental resin monomers. J Dent Res 2006; 85(10):870-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910608501001

Issa Y, Watts DC, Brunton PA, Waters CM, Duxbury AJ. Resin composite monomers alter MTT and LDH activity of human gingival fibroblasts in vitro. Dent Mater 2004; 20(1):12-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0109-5641(03)00053-8

Pawińska M, Łuczaj-Cepowicz E, Kierklo A, Marczuk-Kolada G, Hołownia A. Assessment of cytotoxic potential of root canal sealers after hardening - an ex vivo study. Postepy Hig Med Dosw 2015; 69:503-9. https://doi.org/10.5604/17322693.1150134

Jung S, Sielker S, Hanisch MR, Libricht V, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Cytotoxic effects of four different root canal sealers on human osteoblasts. PLoS One 2018; 13(3):e0194467. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194467

Poggio C, Riva P, Chiesa M, Colombo M, Pietrocola G. Comparative cytotoxicity evaluation of eight root canal sealers. J Clin Exp Dent 2017; 9(4):e574-e578. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.53724

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(1):64-70. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2013.798871

Wendt SL Jr, Ziemiecki TL, Spangberg LS. Indirect cytotoxic evaluation of dental materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1993; 75(3):353-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(93)90150-3

Konjhodzic-Prcic A, Jakupovic S, Hasic-Brankovic L, Vukovic A. Evaluation of biocompatibility of root canal sealers on L929 fibroblasts with multiscan EX spectrophotometer. Acta Inform Med 2015; 23(3):135-7. https://doi.org/10.5455/aim.2015.23.135-137

Alsubait SA, Al Ajlan R, Mitwalli H, Aburaisi N, Mahmood A, Muthurangan M, et al. Cytotoxicity of different concentrations of three root canal sealers on human mesenchymal stem cells. Biomolecules 2018; 8(3):E68. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom8030068

Dumas V, Rattner A, Vico L, Audouard E, Dumas JC, Naisson P, et al. Multiscale grooved titanium processed with femtosecond laser influences mesenchymal stem cell morphology, adhesion, and matrix organization. J Biomed Mater Res A 2012; 100(11):3108-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34239

Khan AS, Khalid H, Sarfraz Z, Khan M, Iqbal J, Muhammad M, et al. Vibrational spectroscopy of selective dental restorative materials. Appl Spectros Rev 2016; 52(6):507-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/05704928.2016.1244069

Cifuentes SC, Gavilán R, Lieblich M, Benavente R, González-Carrasco JL. In vitro degradation of biodegradable polylactic acid/magnesium composites: relevance of Mg particle shape. Acta Biomater 2016; 32:348-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2015.12.037

Sampaio FC, Alencar AH, Guedes OA, Veloso HH, Santos TO, Estrela C. Chemical elements characterization of root canal sealers using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive x-ray analysis. Oral Health Dent Manag 2014; 13(1):27-34.

Prado M, Silva EJNL, Duque TM, Zaia AA, Ferraz CCR, Almeida JFA, et al. Antimicrobial and cytotoxic effects of phosphoric acid solution compared to other root canal irrigants. J Appl Oral Sci 2015; 23(2):158-63. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720130691

Younas B, Khan AB, Muzaffar D, Hussain I, Chaudhry AA, Rehman IU. In situ reaction kinetic analysis of dental restorative materials. Eur Phys J Appl Phys 2013; 64(3):30701. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjap/2013130361

Vargün E, Usanmaz A. Degradation of poly (2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) obtained by radiation in aqueous solution. J Macromol Sci Part A Pure Appl Chem 2010; 47(9):882-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10601325.2010.501304