Evaluation of the genotoxicity and cytotoxicity in the buccal epithelial cells of patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with three light-cured bonding composites by using micronucleus testing

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study evaluated the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of fixed orthodontic treatment with three different light-cured orthodontic bonding composites by analyzing micronucleus (MN) formation in the buccal mucosa during a 6-month period.MethodsThirty healthy volunteers were selected from consecutive patients referred for orthodontic treatment. Equilibrium 2 brackets and molar tubes (Dentaurum) were bonded with three different light-cured orthodontic bonding composites-Transbond XT (3M Unitek), Kurasper F (Kuraray Europe), or GrenGloo (Ormco Corporation)- to all teeth in both arches. Exfoliated buccal epithelial cells were scraped from the middle part of the inner cheeks with sterile cement spatulas before treatment and at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. MNs and nuclear alterations, such as karyorrhexis (KR), karyolysis (KL), and binucleated cells (BNs), were scored under a light microscope. Repeated measure ANOVA was used to calculate statistical differences in degenerative nuclear abnormalities.ResultsMN rates did not significantly differ among different time points within the same cell type (p > 0.05). In contrast, the number of BNs in buccal epithelial cells significantly increased in all composite groups (p < 0.01, Transbond XT; p < 0.001, Kurasper F and GrenGloo). KL frequency significantly increased between the beginning and end of the study in the Kurasfer F (0.80 ± 0.79 to 1.90 ± 1.10; p < 0.05) and GrenGloo (1.30 ± 1.06 to 2.40 ± 1.08; p < 0.05) groups.ConclusionsAfter 6 months of fixed orthodontic treatment with different light-cured composites, morphological signs of cytotoxicity were observed but genotoxic effects were absent.

Cytomorphometric analysis on the effects of components of orthodontic appliances on the epithelial cells of the buccal mucosa

“…[6] Therefore, we evaluated the genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of orthodontic treatment on human oral mucosa cells in such a setting.…”

Emergence of micronuclei and apoptosis as potential biomarker of oral carcinogenesis: An updated review

“…They have concluded that chewing gutkha along with smoking is more dangerous for human health as it hastens the incidence of OSMF. Toy et al [20] evaluated the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of fixed orthodontic treatment with three different light-cured orthodontic bonding composites by analyzing MN formation and nuclear alterations, such as KR, KL, and BNs, in the buccal mucosa during a 6-month period. Parameters were scored under light microscope using acridine orange stain.…”

Synthesis, Swelling Properties and Evaluation of Genotoxicity of Hydrogels Based on (Meth)acrylates and Itaconic Acid

“…Itaconic acid is a component of natural origin and it is supposed that will not induce genotoxicity. (Meth)acrylate monomers are reported in the literature to exhibit genotoxic effects [24][25][26][27][28][29][30] . Furthermore, Dearfield et al 55 showed that acrylates are generally more potent to induce mutations, abberations and micronuclei than methacrylates, although this appears to be structure-related (dependent upon number of functional vinyl groups and the length of oxyethylene chains).…”

“…Although many HEMA-based hydrogels are generally considered to be non-toxic and have been used in biomedical applications [21][22][23] , the information on their safety is still incomplete. HEMA, as (meth)acrylate monomer, is capable to induce various adverse effects at cellular level, such as oxidative stress, cell cycle disturbance and apoptosis [24][25][26][27] . Table 1 shows the results of different in vitro studies which have demonstrated that HEMA is a potent mediator of DNA damage, at concentrations ranging from micromolar to millimolar.…”