Objectives: To evaluate and compare mutagenicity (micronucleus) and cytotoxicity (karyorrhexis, pyknosis, and karyolysis) in exfoliated buccal mucosa cells of children following cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) or conventional radiograph exposure necessary for orthodontic planning. Materials and Methods: A total of 49 healthy children were submitted to CBCT or a conventional orthodontic radiographic protocol; they were divided into two groups based on exam: CBCT (n 5 24) and Radiographic Set (n 5 25) groups. The micronucleus test in the exfoliated buccal mucosa cells was applied.Results: There was not a statistically significant difference (P . .05) found between the number of micronucleated buccal mucosa cells (MNC) before and after exposure to radiation in either group, showing that neither group experienced a mutagenic effect. However, radiation did cause other nuclear alterations closely related to cytotoxicity, including karyorrhexis, pyknosis, and karyolysis, in both groups (P , .05). The CBCT group presented a greater increase in cell death than was noted in the Radiographic Set group (P , .044). Conclusion: According to the micronucleus test, mutagenicity was not induced by the CBCT or the conventional radiographs, but cytotoxicity was verified after these exams, especially after CBCT. That might have happened once the CBCT group received a greater radiation dose than the Radiographic Set group as a result of the protocols used in orthodontic planning for this study. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:104-109.)

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate DNA damage (micronucleus) and cellular death (pyknosis, karyolysis and karyorrhexis) in exfoliated buccal mucosa cells from adults following cone beam CT exposure. Methods: A total of 19 healthy adults (10 men and 9 women) submitted to cone beam CT were included. Results: No significant statistically differences (P . 0.05) in micronucleus frequency were seen before and after cone beam CT exposure. In contrast, the tomography was able to increase other nuclear alterations closely related to cytotoxicity such as karyorrhexis, pyknosis and karyolysis (P , 0.05). Conclusion: In summary, these data indicate that cone beam CT may not be a factor that induces chromosomal damage, but it is able to promote cytotoxicity.

The aim of the present study was to comparatively evaluate DNA damage and cellular death in cells exposed to various commercially available mouthrinses: Listerine Cepacol, Plax alcohol free, Periogard, and Plax Whitening. A total of 75 volunteers were included in the search distributed into five groups containing 15 people each for in vivo study. Exfoliated buccal mucosa cells were collected immediately before mouthrinse exposure and after 2 weeks. Furthermore, blood samples were obtained from three healthy donors for in vitro study. The micronucleus test was used to evaluate mutagenicity and cytotoxicity in vivo. The single-cell gel (comet) assay was used to determine DNA damage in vitro. After 2 weeks exposure, Periogard showed 1.8% of micronucleated cells with significant statistical differences (p < 0.05) compared to before exposure (0.27%). Plax Whitening presented high tail moment value (4.5) when compared to negative control (0.6). The addition of all mouthrinses to cells incubated with methyl methanesulfonate did not alter the number of strand breaks in the genetic material. Listerine was able to reduce genetic damage induced by hydrogen peroxide because a decrease of tail moment was noticed. The results of the present study suggest that Periogard and Plax Whitening can induce genetic damage, whereas Listerine is an antioxidant agent. Since DNA damage is considered to be prime mechanism during chemical carcinogenesis, these data may be relevant in risk assessment for protecting human health and preventing carcinogenesis.

The aim of the present study was to comparatively evaluate DNA damage (micronucleus) and cellular death (pyknosis, karyolysis, and karyorrhexis) in exfoliated oral mucosa cells from smokers and non-smokers submitted to dental X-ray using two anatomic sites: buccal mucosa and lateral border of the tongue. A total of 15 heavy smokers and 17 non-smokers were submitted to panoramic dental radiography for orthodontic reasons. Individuals had epithelial cells from cheek and lateral border of the tongue mechanically exfoliated, placed in fixative, and dropped in clean slides which were checked for the above nuclear phenotypes. The results pointed out no significant statistically differences (p > 0.05) of micronucleated oral mucosa cells before versus after X-ray exposure for both oral sites evaluated either to smokers or to non-smokers. X-ray exposure was able to increase other nuclear alterations closely related to cytotoxicity such as karrhyorexis, pyknosis, and karyolysis for two groups evaluated. Nevertheless, the most pronunciated effects were found to lateral border of the tongue of smokers. In summary, these data indicate that panoramic X-ray is able to induce cellular death in oral mucosa cells. It seems that lateral border of the tongue is more sensitive site to cytotoxic insult induced by ionizing radiation combined with continuous cigarette smoke exposure.

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate DNA damage (micronucleus) and cellular death (pyknosis, karyolysis and karyorrhexis) in exfoliated buccal mucosa cells from individuals following radiography. Methods: Lateral and frontal cephalometric X-ray and panoramic dental X-rays were taken of a total of 18 healthy patients (6 male and 12 female) referred for orthodontic therapy. Exfoliated oral mucosa cells were collected immediately before X-ray exposure and after 10 days. Results: The results revealed no statistically significant difference (P . 0.05) in the frequency micronucleated oral mucosa cells after X-ray exposure. However, X-ray was able to increase other nuclear alterations closely related to cytotoxicity, such as karyorrhexis, pyknosis and karyolysis. Conclusions: Data indicated that exposure to certain radiography may not be a factor in inducing chromosomal damage, but it does promote cytotoxicity.