Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of contemporary glass-ionomer cements on mouse fibroblasts and human dental pulp cells
- 43 Downloads
This study aimed to evaluate the cytotoxic effects of different types of contemporary GICs on human dental pulp cell (hDPCs) and mouse fibroblast (L929) cultures.
Three high-viscosity GICs (HVGIC; GC Equia Forte, Riva Self Cure, IonoStar Plus), three resin-modified GICs (RMGIC; Photac Fil, Riva Light Cure, Ionolux), and a metal-reinforced GIC (MRGIC; Riva Silver) were investigated. Twelve disc-shaped specimens of each material were prepared and stored in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium (DMEM). L929 fibroblasts and DPCs were then cultured in 96-well plates. Uncultured DMEM was used as a negative control. Mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity (MTT) assays were performed to detect cell viability after 24, 48, and 72 h. Data were analysed using Mann–Whitney U and Friedman tests followed by a Bonferroni-corrected Wilcoxon signed rank test, with the statistical significance set at P < 0.05.
Toxicity levels varied between the cell-culture systems. MTT assays of L929 cells showed significant differences in percentages of viable cells, as follows: Riva Self Cure = Riva Silver > GC Equia Forte > IonoStar Plus = Riva Light Cure = Photac Fil > Ionolux. MTT assays of DPCs showed the percentages of viable cells to be significantly lower for the Ionolux group when compared to the other GICs, which did not differ significantly from one another. With the exception of Ionolux, none of the other GICs tested showed any toxicity, and in fact, they all induced cell proliferation (> 100% cell viability).
Although the degree of toxicity varied between the two cell-culture systems investigated, all the GICs tested, with the exception of Ionolux, performed favorably with regard to cytotoxicity (> 100% cell viability in both cell systems).
KeywordsGlass-ionomer cement Dental pulp cells Fibroblasts MTT assay Cell viability Cytotoxicity
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors affirm that they do not presently have, nor have they had in the past, any direct financial interest in the subject or materials discussed in this manuscript, or any affiliation with any commercial organisation with any such financial interest.
- Arndt V. Completing a direct posterior restoration using Ionofil Molar AC Quick immediately packable glass ionomer. In: Dental Product Report. 2002. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-260753781.html. Accessed Dec 2002.
- Tarim B, Hafez AA, Cox CF. Pulpal response to a resin-modified glass-ionomer material on nonexposed and exposed monkey pulps. Quint Int. 1998;29:535–42.Google Scholar