Cytotoxicity of V-Prep Versus Phosphoric Acid Etchant on Oral Gingival Fibroblasts

Abstract

The most used etchant in dental daily practice is the phosphoric acid (P.A.; 37%). However, acid etchants can induce necrosis on the oral mucosa and cause the ulceration of periodontal tissue when a rubber dam is not used. V-prep is a new practical alternative, and it has satisfactory results. It is used as a preparation before the application of a resin-modified glass ionomer composite (RMGIC) to bond the orthodontic brackets. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the V-prep on oral gingival fibroblasts cells by comparing the cell damage and cell viability after the use of V-prep and a conventional phosphoric acid etchant with different application times and concentrations. Therefore, Gingival fibroblasts passage 6 (GFP6) was grown and treated with an acid etchant and V-prep at three different concentrations (1:1, 1:2 and 1:10) for two different application durations (30 s and 1 min). The morphological changes, cell death and cell viability were assessed. Pyknosis, karyolysis, nucleus reversible and irreversible damages and membrane destruction were observed for both of the etchants at the higher concentrations and longer application durations. Mann–Whitney U-tests were used for the statistical analyses. The application of the V-prep for 30 s showed better values than the acid etchant did in the cell damage analysis and cell viability analysis (p = 0.03). V-prep at a 1:10 concentration applied for a 30 s duration can preserve the viability of gingival fibroblasts cells up to 100%. The toxicity of V-prep is equal or lower than the toxicity of the acid etchant that is commonly used in dentistry. Thus, the V-prep can be used with precautions intra-orally, and it should be applied on the enamel as a gel for 30 s only before it is rinsed and removed.

Eighteen-Month Orthodontic Bracket Survival Rate with the Conventional Bonding Technique versus RMGIC and V-Prep: A Split-Mouth RCT

“…This study showed comparable results with the conventional composite resin when the enamel surface was prepared with the V-prep and bonded with the Fuji Ortho LC (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) [16]. Another study showed equal or lower toxicity for the V-prep compared to the conventional acid etch when tested on gingival fibroblasts cells for 30 s [17]. Yet, no clinical trial used the V-prep as a preparing agent before the bonding with RMGIC.…”

“…In the latter case, poor results were recorded when comparing the RMGIC to the conventional bonding technique. In this study, the maximum length of monitoring of eighteen months was adopted and a preparation product with reliable in vitro and cytotoxicity results was applied before bonding with RMGIC [16,17].…”

Passaging of gingival fibroblasts from periodontally healthy and diseased sites upregulates osteogenesis-related genes

“…This is an inevitable shortcoming of this study that focuses only on mRNA expression. Many researchers use primary gingival fibroblast cells from passage 1 to 4 [ 34 – 37 ]; however, some research groups use cells from later passages [ 38 , 39 ]. A study [ 40 ] that compared the protein expression of gingival fibroblasts, such as IL-6, IL-8, TNF-α and MMP-3, from passage 4 to 5 (early passage cells) compared to passage 30–35 (late passage cells) found no significant differences.…”

The Performance of Different Etchants on the Carbides of Ni600 and Ni625

“…After each etching session, the samples were repolished using the final two colloidal silica polish steps to restore the flat surface. A literature survey was used to identify reliable etchants, and etching methods utilized on nickel alloys and summarized from various works [24][25][26][27][28] are shown in Table 2, encompassing both chemical and electrolytic etching methods. The etching time was incrementally increased for each etchant from a brief duration to establish a time step.…”

“…A comparative analysis was conducted to evaluate the grain size and carbide distribution between Ni600 and Ni625. Some previous studies have summarized and compared etchants for nickel alloys [24][25][26][27][28], but this paper aimed to systematically compare, more intuitively, the effects of several etchants effective on Ni600 and Ni625. Specifically, it focused on the morphologies they produce on the sample surfaces and their distinct impacts on carbides.…”