The improvement of biocompatibility of adhesives

The effects of resveratrol on biocompatibility and dentin micro-tensile bond strengths of self-etch adhesives
  • Cigdem AtalayinEmail author
  • Huseyin Tezel
  • Zeynep Ergucu
  • Nimet Unlu
  • Guliz Armagan
  • Taner Dagci
  • Timur Kose
Original Article



The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the effects of resveratrol (RES) addition on the cytotoxicity and microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of different adhesives.

Materials and methods

Five self-etching adhesives (G-aenial Bond-GC, Optibond All in One-Kerr, Gluma Self Etch-Kulzer, Clearfil S3 Bond-Kuraray, and Nova Compo-B Plus-Imicryl) were tested. They were applied to L-929 cell culture by the extract method. In the test groups, 0.5 μM RES (Sigma-Aldrich) was added into the medium. Cell viability was assessed by MTT assay after 24 h. Human extracted third molars were used for μTBS test (n = 7). The adhesives with or without 0.5 μM RES addition were applied on dentin surfaces. A composite build-up was constructed. Then, the specimens were sectioned into multiple beams with the non-trimming version of the microtensile test and subjected to microtensile forces. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test (p ˂ 0.05).


The extracts of all adhesives decreased the cell viability. However, RES addition increased the cell viability in all groups (p ˂ 0.05). RES addition did not cause any decrease in μTBS values of the adhesives compared to baseline. Optibond All in One showed the highest μTBS after RES addition. It was followed by Clerafil S3 Bond and Nova Compo-B Plus. No difference was determined between the Optibond All in One and Clearfil S3 Bond. There was difference between Optibond All in One and Nova Compo-B Plus (p ˂ 0.05).


RES addition may improve the biocompatibility without causing negative influence on μTBS of the adhesives.

Clinical relevance

RES addition has clinical applicable potential to overcome the adverse biocompatibility of adhesives.


Adhesive Antioxidant Cell viability Microtensile bond strength Resveratrol 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Schweikl H, Spagnuolo G, Schmalz G (2006) Genetic and cellular toxicology of dental resin monomers. J Dent Res 85(10):870–877. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erhardt MC, Osorio R, Viseras C, Toledano M (2011) Adjunctive use of an antioxidant agent to improve resistance of hybrid layers to degradation. J Dent 39(1):80–87. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mukherjee S, Dudley JI, Das DK (2010) Dose-dependency of resveratrol in providing health benefits. Dose Response 8:478–500. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    San Miguel SM, Opperman LA, Allen EP, Zielinski J, Svoboda KK (2012) Bioactive polyphenol antioxidants protect oral fibroblasts from ROS-inducing agents. Arch Oral Biol 57(12):1657–1667. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atalayin C, Armagan G, Konyalioglu S, Kemaloglu H, Tezel H, Ergucu Z et al (2015) The protective effect of resveratrol against dentin bonding agents induced cytotoxicity. Dent Mater J 34(6):766–773. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LH, Soares CJ, Yamagawa J (2010) Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods. Dent Mater 26(2):50–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B, Carvalho R, Pashley DH (1994) Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strengthevaluation of a microtensile bond test. Dent Mater 10(4):236–240. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-kholany NR, Abielhassan MH, Elembaby AE, Maria OM (2012) Apoptotic effect of different self-etch dental adhesives on odontoblasts in cell cultures. Arch Oral Biol 57(6):775–783. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Amato PA, Martins RP, dos Santos Cruz CA, Capella MV, Martins LP (2014) Time reduction of light curing: influence on conversion degree and microhardness of orthodontic composites. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146(1):40–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schubert A, Ziegler C, Bernhard A, Bürgers R, Miosge N (2018, 2018) Cytotoxic effects to mouse and human gingival fibroblasts of a nanohybrid ormocer versus dimethacrylate-based composites. Clin Oral Investig.
  11. 11.
    Gescher AJ, Steward WP (2003) Relationship between mechanisms, bioavailibility, and preclinical chemopreventive efficacy of resveratrol: a conundrum. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 12(10):953–957Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wenzel E, Somoza V (2005) Metabolism and bioavailability of transresveratrol. Mol Nutr Food Res 49(5):472–481. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nawaz W, Zhou Z, Deng S, Ma X, Ma X, Li C, Shu X (2017) Therapeutic versatility of resveratrol derivatives. Nutrients 9(11):E1188. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Delmas D, Lançon A, Colin D, Jannin B, Latruffe N (2006) Resveratrol as a chemopreventive agent: a promising molecule for fighting cancer. Curr Drug Targets 7(4):423–442. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marambaud P, Zhao H, Davies P (2005) Resveratrol promotes clearance of Alzheimer’s disease amyloid-beta peptides. J Biol Chem 280(45):37377–37382. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kusdemir M, Gunal S, Ozer F, Imazato S, Izutani N, Ebisu S, Blatz MB (2011) Evaluation of cytotoxic effects of six self-etching adhesives with direct and indirect tests. Dent Mater J 30(6):799–805. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spagnuolo G, Mauro C, Leonardi A, Santillo M, Paterno R, Schweikl H et al (2004) NF-κ protection against apoptosis induced by HEMA. J Dent Res 83(11):837–842. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janke V, von Neuhoff N, Schlegelberger B, Leyhausen G, Geurtsen W (2003) TEGDMA causes apoptosis in primary human gingival fibroblasts. J Dent Res 82(10):814–818. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ratanasathien S, Wataha JC, Hanks CT, Dennison JB (1995) Cytotoxic interactive effects of dentin bonding components on mouse fibroblasts. J Dent Res 74(9):1602–1606. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim NR, Park HC, Kim I, Lim BS, Yang HC (2010) In vitro cytocompatibility of N-acetylcysteine-supplemented dentin bonding agents. J Endod 36(11):1844–1850. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krifka S, Spagnuolo G, Schmalz G, Schweikl H (2013) A review of adaptive mechanisms in cell responses towards oxidative stress caused by dental resin monomers. Biomaterials 34(19):4555–4563. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ahn J, Jung KH, Son SA, Hur B, Kwon YH, Park JK (2015) Effect of additional etching and ethanol-wet bonding on the dentin bond strength of one-step self-etch adhesives. Restor Dent Endod 40(1):68–74. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zilberman U, Lasilla L (2014) The use of glass-fibers ribbon and composite for prosthetic restoration of missing primary teeth-laboratory and clinical research. Open Dent J 8:220–228. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pinzon LM, Watanabe LG, Reis AF, Powers JM, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW (2013) Analysis of interfacial structure and bond strength of self-etch adhesives. Am J Dent 26(6):335–340PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Poptani B, Gohil KS, Ganjiwale J, Shukla M (2012) Microtensile dentin bond strength of fifth with five seventh-generation dentin bonding agents after thermocycling: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 3(2):167–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, Inoue S, Tagawa Y, Suzuki K, de Munck J, van Meerbeek B (2004) Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 83(6):454–458. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fujisawa S, Ito S (1999) 1H-NMR studies of the interaction of dental adhesive monomer, 4-META with calcium. Dent Mater J 18(1):54–62. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A et al (2007) Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 28(26):3757–3785. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gotti VB, Feitosa VP, Sauro S, Correr-Sobrinho L, Leal FB, Stansbury JW et al (2015) Effect of antioxidants on the dentin interface bond stability of adhesives exposed to hydrolytic degradation. J Adhes Dent 17(1):35–44. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Soeno K, Taira Y, Jimbo R, Sawase T (2008) Surface treatment with ascorbic acid and ferric chloride improves the micro-tensile bond strength of 4-META/MMA-TBB resin to dentin. J Dent 36(11):940–944. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Güler E, Gönülol N, Özyilmaz ÖY, Yücel AÇ (2013) Effect of sodium ascorbate on the bond strength of silorane and methacrylate composites after vital bleaching. Braz Oral Res 27(4):299–304. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Whang HJ, Shin DH (2015) Effects of applying antioxidants on bond strength of bleached bovine dentin. Restor Dent Endod 40(1):37–43. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Restorative DentistryEge University School of DentistryIzmirTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Restorative DentistrySelcuk University School of DentistryKonyaTurkey
  3. 3.Department of BiochemistryEge University Faculty of PharmacyIzmirTurkey
  4. 4.Department of PhysiologyEge University School of MedicineIzmirTurkey
  5. 5.Department of Biostatistics and Medical InformaticsEge University School of MedicineIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations