Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cytotoxicity of denture adhesives

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ten commercially available denture adhesives, nine soluble formulations (six creams, three powders) and one insoluble product (pad), were analyzed regarding the cytotoxicity profile in direct and indirect assays using L929 fibroblast cells. In the direct assay, fibroblasts were seeded over the surface of a thick adhesive gel (5%, creams; 2.5%, powders and pad). In the indirect assay, cells were cultured in the presence of adhesive extracts prepared in static and dynamic conditions (0.5–2%, creams; 0.25–1%, powders and pad). Cell toxicity was assessed for cell viability/proliferation (MTT assay) and cell morphology (observation of the F-actin cytoskeleton organization by confocal laser scanning microscopy). Direct contact of the L929 fibroblasts with the thick adhesive gels caused no, or only a slight, decrease in cell viability/proliferation. The adhesive extracts (especially those prepared in dynamic conditions) caused significantly higher growth inhibition of fibroblasts and, in addition, caused dose- and time-dependent effects, throughout the 6–72 h exposure time. Also, dose-dependent effects on cell morphology, with evident disruption of the F-actin cytoskeleton organization, were seen in the presence of most adhesives. In conclusion, the adhesives possessed different degrees of cytotoxicity, but similar dose- and time-dependent biological profiles.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shay K (1991) Denture adhesives. J Am Dent Assoc 99:70–76

    Google Scholar 

  2. Coates A (2000) Usage of denture adhesives. J Dent 28:137–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Douglass C, Shih A, Ostry L (2002) Will there be a need for complete dentures in the United States in 2020? J Prosthet Dent 87:5–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Grasso J (1996) Denture adhesives: changing attitudes. J Am Dent Assoc 127:90–96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stafford G, Russell C (1971) Efficiency of denture adhesives and their possible influence on oral microorganisms. J Dent Res 50:832–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hogan W (1954) Allergic reaction of adhesive denture powders. N Y S Dent J 20:65

    Google Scholar 

  7. Benson D, Rothman R, Sims T (1972) The effect of a denture adhesive on the oral mucosa and vertical dimension of complete denture patients. J S C Dent Assoc 40:468–473

    Google Scholar 

  8. Floystrand F, Koppang W, Williams V (1991) A method for testing denture adhesives. J Prosthet Dent 66:501–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Slaughter A, Katz R, Grasso J (1999) Professional attitudes toward denture adhesives: a Delphi technique survey of academic prosthodontists. J Prosthet Dent 82:80–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Adisman I (1989) The use of denture adhesives as an aid to denture treatment. J Prosthet Dent 62:711–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grasso J, Rendell J, Gay T (1994) Effect of denture adhesive on the retention and stability of maxillary dentures. J Prosthet Dent 72:399–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fujimori T, Hirano S, Hayakawa I (2002) Effects of a denture adhesive on masticatory functions for complete denture wearers—consideration for the condition of denture-bearing tissues. J Med Dent Sci 49:151–156

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Olshan A, Ross N, Mankodi S, Melita S (1992) A modified Kapur scale for evaluating denture retention and stability: methodology study. Am J Dent 5:88–90

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Garrett N, Perez P, Elbert C, Kapur K (1996) Effects of improvements of poorly fitting dentures and new dentures on masticatory performance. J Prosthet Dent 75:269–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kupp L, Sheridan P (2003) Denture sore mouth. Dermatol Clin 21:115–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bogucki Z (2008) Effects of dental adhesive materials on the retention of complete maxillary denture in patients with xerostomia in the in vivo study. Protet Stomatol 58:424–430

    Google Scholar 

  17. Boone M (1984) Analysis of soluble and insoluble denture adhesives and their relationship to tissue irritation and bone resorption. Compend Contin Educ Dent 4(Suppl):522–525

    Google Scholar 

  18. Grasso J (2004) Denture adhesives. Dent Clin North Am 48:721–733

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ekstrand B, Hensten-Pettersen S, Kullman A (1993) Denture adhesives: cytotoxicity, microbial contamination, and formaldehyde content. J Prosthet Dent 69:314–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. DeVengencie J, Ng M, Ford P, Iacopino A (1997) In vitro evaluation of denture adhesives: possible efficacy of complex carbohydrates. Intern J Prosthodont 10:61–72

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zhao K, Cheng X-R, Chao Y-L, Li Z-A, Han G-L (2004) Laboratory evaluation of a new denture adhesive. Dent Mater 20:419–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Al R, Dahl J, Morisbak E, Polyzois G (2005) Irritation and cytotoxic potential of denture adhesives. Gerodontology 22:177–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gates W, Goldschmidt M, Krammer D (1994) Microbial contamination in four commercial available denture adhesives. J Prosthet Dent 71:154–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lamb D (1981) The effect of karaya gum on tooth enamel. Br Dent J 150:250–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Love W, Biswas S (1991) Denture adhesives: pH and buffering capacity. J Prosthet Dent 66:356–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nations S, Boyer P, Love L, Burritt M, Butz J, Wolfe G et al (2008) Denture cream: an unusual source of excess zinc, leading to hypocupremia and neurologic disease. Neurology 26:639–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. International Standard ISO 10993-5 (2009) Biological evaluation of medical devices—part 5: tests for in vitro cytotoxicity. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  28. International Standard ISO 7405 (2008) Preclinical evaluation of biocompatibility of medical devices used in dentistry—test methods for dental materials. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stamenovic D (2005) Effects of cytoskeletal prestress on cell rheological behavior. Acta Biomater 1:255–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gilles R, Bolkhir M, Compere P, Libioulle C, Thiry M (1995) Effect of high osmolarity acclimation on tolerance to hyperosmotic shocks in L929 cells. Tissue Cell 27:679–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gilles R, Libioulle C (1998) Mechanisms of acclimation of L929 cells to hyperosmotic media. In: Arnaud MJ (ed) Hydration throughout life. John Libbey Eurotext, Paris, pp 205–209

    Google Scholar 

  32. Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D, Hiller K, Schweikl H (1997) Epithelium–fibroblast co-culture for assessing mucosal irritancy of metals used in dentistry. Eur J Oral Sci 105:86–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Yamamoto A, Honma R, Sumita M (1998) Cytotoxicity evaluation of 43 metal salts using murine fibroblasts and osteoblastic cells. J Biomed Mater Res 39:331–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratório de Farmacologia e Biocompatibilidade Celular, Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Manuel Pereira da Silva, 4200-393, Porto, Portugal

    Pedro Sousa de Gomes & Maria Helena R. Fernandes

  2. Serviço de Prótese Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Manuel Pereira da Silva, 4200-393, Porto, Portugal

    Maria Helena Figueiral

  3. UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK

    Crispian Scully

Authors
  1. Pedro Sousa de Gomes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Helena Figueiral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Helena R. Fernandes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Crispian Scully
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Helena R. Fernandes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Gomes, P.S., Figueiral, M.H., Fernandes, M.H.R. et al. Cytotoxicity of denture adhesives. Clin Oral Invest 15, 885–893 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0464-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0464-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation