Cytocompatibility of periodontal dressing materials in fibroblast and primary human osteoblast-like cultures

Abstract

Purpose of this investigation was to determine the cytocompatibility of various periodontal dressing materials by means of human primary gingival fibroblasts (HGF), human osteoblast-like cells (HObl) derived from the alveolar bone, and permanent 3T3 mouse fibroblasts (3T3). Cell culture medium extracts (time periods of extraction: day 1 and between day 2 and day 8 after setting) as well as solid specimens of the following materials were investigated: Coe-pak, Voco pac, Peripac, and Barricaid. Responses of cultures exposed for 24 h and 48 h to these materials were monitored by the fluorescent dyes H33342 and sulforhodamin 101 as well as by light microscopy. It was found that most extracts of Voco pac, Peripac, and Barricaid did not inhibit growth of HGF. Coe-Pak, however, clearly reduced the proliferation of HGF compared to untreated controls. Peripac decreased growth of HObl whereas Coe-Pak, Voco pac, and Barricaid caused no cytotoxic alterations in any of the test assays. Contrary to HGF and HObl, 3T3 cells were much more irritated by the test materials. But the light-curing resinous material Barricaid reduced proliferation of 3T3-fibroblasts only slightly. Our data indicate that Barricaid is exceedingly cytocompatible, whereas all other materials revealed moderate or severe cytotoxic effects according to the cell type.

Effects of periodontal dressings on fibroblasts and gingival wound healing in dogs

“…After 24-h incubation total cell lysis was observed. Another Peripac treatment on 3T3 mouse fibroblasts resulted in no viable cells after 24 h as reported by Alpar et al (1999). In our study Barricaid dressing showed the lowest inhibitory effect on cell proliferation (growth rate was reduced to 83.3 ± 9% of control after 48 h) and cell survival (SF = 0.41 ± 0.09) with fully cured material.…”

“…In our study Barricaid dressing showed the lowest inhibitory effect on cell proliferation (growth rate was reduced to 83.3 ± 9% of control after 48 h) and cell survival (SF = 0.41 ± 0.09) with fully cured material. Gilbert et al (1994) and Alpar et al (1999) also found no cytotoxic alterations on fibroblasts and HeLa cells with fully cured dressing. In contrast, direct contact of uncured material caused growth inhibition and cell death.…”

“…Several primary cell cultures and established cell lines showed different response to various periodontal dressings (Alpar et al, 1999). Diverse viability assays are now available to measure the cytotoxicity of different substances in mammalian cell systems.…”

“…Mouse fibroblasts (L 929, 3T3 cells), Hela cells, human epithelial cells, human gingival fibroblasts and leukocytes have been used (Hildebrand and De Rensis, 1974;Rivera-Hidalgo et al, 1977;Haugen and Hensten-Pettersen, 1978;Gilbert et al, 1994;Alpar et al, 1999). Soluble material leached from some formed dressings has been found toxic to cells in culture (Hildebrand and De Rensis, 1974;Rivera-Hidalgo et al, 1977) and dilution of soluble extracts from periodontal dressings decreased this toxic effect (Eber et al, 1989;Alpar et al, 1999).…”

Adverse reactions associated with the use of eugenol in dentistry

“…Eugenol is generally cytotoxic at high concentrations and has an adverse effect on fibroblasts and osteoblast-like cells. [19][20][21] Thus at high concentrations it produces necrosis and reduced healing. This effect is dose related and will potentially affect all patients.…”