Cytotoxicity evaluation of zinc oxide-eugenol and non-eugenol cements using different fibroblast cell lines

Authors

  • Jae-Sung Kwon Research Center for Orofacial Hard Tissue Regeneration and Department and Research Institute of Dental Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Rasika P. Illeperuma Department of Oral Pathology, Oral Cancer Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Jin Kim Department of Oral Pathology, Oral Cancer Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Kwang-Mahn Kim Research Center for Orofacial Hard Tissue Regeneration and Department and Research Institute of Dental Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Republic of Korea
  • Kyoung-Nam Kim Research Center for Orofacial Hard Tissue Regeneration and Department and Research Institute of Dental Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, Seoul, Republic of Korea

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2013.798871

Keywords:

biocompatibility, cytotoxicity, temporary cements, fibroblasts

Abstract

Objectives: Despite being commonly used as temporary cements in dentistry, there is a lack of studies regarding the cytotoxicity of zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE) and zinc oxide non-eugenol (ZONE) cements. In addition, cytotoxicity evaluation of the materials often involves animal-based cells. Therefore, in this study, a cytotoxicity evaluation of commercially available ZOE and ZONE cements was carried out using both animal and human-based cells. Materials and methods. The extraction or dilution of the extraction from four commercially available cements (two zinc oxide-eugenol and two zinc oxide non-eugenol) was tested for cytotoxicity, using three different cells and a water-soluble treatzolium salt assay. The results were confirmed using a confocal laser microscope following calcein AM and ethidium homodimer-1 staining. Results. The results showed that there was a significant difference in cell viability depending on which cell was used, even when the same material was tested. Generally, L929 showed relatively low cell viability with a low EC50 (effective concentration of extracts that caused 50% of cell viability compared to the control) value compared to both HGF-1 and hTERT-hNOF. Such results were also confirmed by a confocal laser microscope. Conclusions. Careful consideration on interpreting the results for cytotoxicity evaluation of ZOE and ZONE cements is needed when different cells are used.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2014-01-01