Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2013; 07(S 01): S089-S093
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.119083
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Biocompatibility of glass ionomer cements with and without chlorhexidine

Sultan Gulce Iz
1   Department of Bioengineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ege University, Izmir, Turkiye
,
Fahinur Ertugrul
2   Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkiye
,
Ece Eden
2   Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkiye
,
S. Ismet Deliloglu Gurhan
1   Department of Bioengineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ege University, Izmir, Turkiye
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2019 (online)

  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the biocompatibility of glass ionomer cements (GICs) with and without chlorhexidine (CHX) as well as coated with varnish or not using in vitro cytotoxicity test. Materials and Methods: Biocompatibility of Fuji IX, Fuji IX with varnish, Fuji IX with 1% CHX diacetate and Fuji IX with 1% CHX diacetate with varnish was determined with in vitro cytotoxicity assay by using L929 mouse connective tissue fibroblasts. After 72 h, cell viabilities were evaluated by MTT [3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide] assay to determine the effects of the cements on the mitochondrial function and microscopic images were taken by scanning electron microscopy. Results: Statistical analysis was performed by one-way analysis of variance followed by the Bonferroni post-hoc test at a significance level of P < 0.05. 72 h after treatment, there were statistically significant differences between Fuji IX and Fuji IX-CHX (p < 0.001). In addition, the reduction of the cytotoxicity by coating the GICs with varnish was indicative and increased the cell viability ratio (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Fuji IX coated with varnish was found to be the most biocompatible one among others. Thus adding CHX significantly reduced the cell viability, it is assumed that, due to the leakage of CHX and the other components of the GICs to the cell culture medium, the cell viabilities were decreased, so it is highly recommended to use varnish not only to reduce the water loss from the GICs, but also to reduce the cytotoxicity of the GICs.

Key words:

Biocompatibility - chlorhexidine - glass ionomer cements
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Wilson AD, Kent BE. The glass-ionomer cement: A new translucent dental filling material. J Appl Chem Biotechnol 1971; 21: 313-8
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Czarnecka B, Nicholson JW. Ion release by resin-modified glass-ionomer cements into water and lactic acid solutions. J Dent 2006; 34: 539-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Elsaka SE, Hamouda IM, Swain MV. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles addition to a conventional glass-ionomer restorative: Influence on physical and antibacterial properties. J Dent 2011; 39: 589-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Botelho MG. Inhibitory effects on selected oral bacteria of antibacterial agents incorporated in a glass ionomer cement. Caries Res 2003; 37: 108-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Palmer G, Jones FH, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. Chlorhexidine release from an experimental glass ionomer cement. Biomaterials 2004; 25: 5423-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Leung D, Spratt DA, Pratten J, Gulabivala K, Mordan NJ, Young AM. Chlorhexidine-releasing methacrylate dental composite materials. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 7145-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Komatsu H, Yamamato H, Nomachi M, Yasuda K, Matsuda Y, Murata Y. et al. Fluorine uptake into human enamel around a fluoride-containing dental material during cariogenic pH cycling. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 2007; 260: 201-6
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Xie D, Weng Y, Guo X, Zhao J, Gregory RL, Zheng C. Preparation and evaluation of a novel glass-ionomer cement with antibacterial functions. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 487-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Verraedt E, Pendela M, Adams E, Hoogmartens J, Martens JA. Controlled release of chlorhexidine from amorphous microporous silica. J Control Release 2010; 142: 47-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Keegan GM, Smart JD, Ingram MJ, Barnes LM, Burnett GR, Rees GD. Chitosan microparticles for the controlled delivery of fluoride. J Dent 2012; 40: 229-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Deepalakshmi M, Poorni S, Miglani R, Rajamani I, Ramachandran S. Evaluation of the antibacterial and physical properties of glass ionomer cements containing chlorhexidine and cetrimide: An in-vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2010; 21: 552-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hidalgo E, Dominguez C. Mechanisms underlying chlorhexidine-induced cytotoxicity. Toxicol In Vitro 2001; 15: 271-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ribeiro DA, Scolastici C, De Lima PL, Marques ME, Salvadori DM. Genotoxicity of antimicrobial endodontic compounds by single cell gel (comet) assay in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 99: 637-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Giannelli M, Chellini F, Margheri M, Tonelli P, Tani A. Effect of chlorhexidine digluconate on different cell types: A molecular and ultrastructural investigation. Toxicol In Vitro 2008; 22: 308-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hatton PV, Hurrell-Gillingham K, Brook IM. Biocompatibility of glass-ionomer bone cements. J Dent 2006; 34: 598-601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zange R, Kissel T. Comparative in vitro biocompatibility testing of polycyanoacrylates and poly (D, L-lactide-co-glycolide) using different mouse fibroblast (L929) biocompatibility test models. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 1997; 44: 149-57
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lin YC, Lai YL, Chen WT, Lee SY. Kinetics of fluoride release from and reuptake by orthodontic cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 427-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B. Kinetic studies of the effect of varnish on water loss by glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 1549-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rajabalian S, Mohammadi M, Mozaffari B. Cytotoxicity evaluation of persica mouthwash on cultured human and mouse cell lines in the presence and absence of fetal calf serum. Indian J Dent Res 2009; 20: 169-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 de Souza LB, de Aquino SG, de Souza PP, Hebling J, Cost CA. Cytotoxic effects of different concentrations of chlorhexidine. Am J Dent 2007; 20: 400-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Grassi TF, Camargo EA, Salvadori DM, Marques ME, Ribeiro DA. DNA damage in multiple organs after exposure to chlorhexidine in Wistar rats. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2007; 210: 163-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 de Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hanks CT. In vitro cytotoxicity of five glass-ionomer cements. Biomaterials 2003; 24: 3853-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bayne SC. Correlation of clinical performance with ′in vitro tests′ of restorative dental materials that use polymer-based matrices. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 52-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar