Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2009; 03(04): 285-289
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697446
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Biopure MTAD Induces DNA Damage but Not Cellular Death: An In Vitro Study

Juliana Soares Roter Marins
a   Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro State University, UERJ, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil
,
Luciana Moura Sassone
a   Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro State University, UERJ, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil
,
Daniel Araki Ribeiro
b   Department of Biosciences, Federal University of Sao Paulo, UNIFESP, Santos, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 September 2019 (online)

  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the capacity of BioPure MTAD to induce genetic damage in vitro. Genotoxicity was assessed by the single cell gel (comet) assay.

Methods: Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells or murine fibroblasts cells were exposed to increasing final concentrations ranging from 0.1 a 10%. All treatments were performed for 1 hour at 37°C. The negative control group was treated with vehicle control (phosphate buffer solution - PBS) for 1 hour at 37°C and the positive control group was treated with methylmetanesulfonate (at 1 µM) for 1 hour at 37°C.

Results: Present results showed that the BioPure MTAD was able to promote DNA breakage in CHO cells only at the highest concentration tested as well as to induce significant increase in tail moment at all tested concentrations in murine fibroblasts.

Conclusions: In summary, our results indicate that BioPure MTAD is a genotoxic agent as depicted by the single cell gel (comet) assay. (Eur J Dent 2009;3:285-289)

Key words:

BioPure MTAD - DNA damage - Single cell gel (comet) assay - Cellular death
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Rosenthal S, Spangberg L, Safavi K. Chlorhexidine substantivity in root canal dentin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98:488-492.
  • 2 Mohammadi Z, Shahriari S. Residual antibacterial activity of chlorhexidine and MTAD in human root dentin in vitro. J Oral Sci 2008;50:63-67.
  • 3 Shabahang S, Aslanyan J, Torabinejad M. The substitution of chlorhexidine for doxycycline in MTAD: the antibacterial efficacy against a strain of Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod 2008;34:288-290.
  • 4 Newberry BM, Shabahang S, Johnson N, Aprecio RM, Torabinejad M. The antimicrobial effect of biopure MTAD on eight strains of Enterococcus faecalis: an in vitro investigation. J Endod 2007;33:1352-1354.
  • 5 Sugimura T, Terada M, Yokota J, Hirohashi S, Wakabayashi K. Multiple genetic alterations in human carcinogenesis. Environ Health Perspect 1992;98:5-12.
  • 6 Sarasin A. An overview of the mechanisms of mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Mutat Res 2003;544:99-106.
  • 7 Ribeiro DA. Do endodontic compounds induce genetic damage? A comprehensive review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:251-256.
  • 8 Auletta A, Ashby J. Workshop on the relationship between short-term information and carcinogenicity; Williamsburg, Virginia, January 20-23, Environ Mol Mutagen 1988;11:135-145.
  • 9 Tice RR, Agurell E, Anderson D, Burlinson B, Hartmann A, Kobayashi H, Miyamae Y, Rojas E, Ryu JC, Sasaki YF. Single cell gel/comet assay: guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing. Environ Mol Mutagen 2000;35:206- 221.
  • 10 Ribeiro DA, Marques ME, Salvadori DM.Biocompatibility of glass-ionomer cements using mouse lymphoma cells in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:912-917.
  • 11 Braz MG, Camargo EA, Salvadori DM, Marques ME, Ribeiro DA. Evaluation of genetic damage in human peripheral lymphocytes exposed to mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cements. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:234-239.
  • 12 Ribeiro DA, Marques ME, Salvadori DM. Lack of genotoxicity of formocresol, paramonochlorophenol, and calcium hydroxide on mammalian cells by comet assay. J Endod 2004;30:593-536.
  • 13 Mckelvey-Martin VJ, Green MHL, Schmezer P, Pool-Zobel BL, De Méo MP, Collins A. The single cell gel electrophoresis assay (comet assay): a european review. Mutat Res 1993;288:47-63.
  • 14 Hartmann A, Agurell E, Beevers C, Brendler-Schwaab S, Burlinson B, Clay P, Collins A, Smith A, Speit G, Thybaud V, Tice RR. Recommendations for conducting the in vivo alkaline comet assay. Mutagenesis 2000;18;45-51.
  • 15 Ribeiro DA, Pereira PC, Machado JM, Silva SB, Pessoa AW, Salvadori DM. Does toxoplasmosis cause DNA damage? An evaluation in isogenic mice under normal diet or dietary restriction. Mutat Res 2004;559:169-76.
  • 16 Zhang W, Torabinejad M, Li Y. Evaluation of cytotoxicity of MTAD using the MTT-tetrazolium method. J Endod 2003;29:654-657.
  • 17 Kirkland D, Aardema L, Henderson L, Muller L. Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three genotoxicity tests to discriminate roden carcinogens and non-carcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative precditivity. Mutat Res 2005;584:1-256.
  • 18 Dearfield KL, Moore MM. Use of genetic toxicology information for risk assessment. Environ Mol Mutagen 2005;46:236- 245.
  • 19 Thybaud T, Aardema M, Clements J, Dearfield K, Galloway S, Hayashi M, Jacobson-Kram D, Kirkland D, MacGregor JT, Marzin D, Ohyama W, Schuler M, Suzuki H, Zeiger E. Strategy for genotoxicity testing: hazard identification and risk assessment in relation to in vitro testing. Mutat Res 2007;627:41-58.
  • 20 Ribeiro DA, Pereira PC, Machado JM, Silva SB, Pessoa AW, Salvadori DM. Does toxoplasmosis cause DNA damage? An evaluation in isogenic mice under normal diet or dietary restriction. Mutat Res 2004;559:169-176.