Format

Send to

Choose Destination

See 1 citation found using an alternative search:

J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jul;118(1):31-35. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.002. Epub 2016 Dec 4.

In vitro effects of dental cements on hard and soft tissues associated with dental implants.

Author information

1
Graduate student, Department of Bioengineering, Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas.
2
Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Washington School of Dentistry, Seattle, Wash.
3
Affiliate Faculty, Department of Restorative Dentistry; Private practice, Bellevue, Wash.
4
Assistant Professor, Department of Bioengineering, Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas. Electronic address: danieli@utdallas.edu.

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:

Dental cements for cement-retained restorations are often chosen based on clinician preference for the product's material properties, mixing process, delivery mechanism, or viscosity. The composition of dental cement may play a significant role in the proliferation or inhibition of different bacterial strains associated with peri-implant disease, and the effect of dental cements on host cellular proliferation may provide further insight into appropriate cement material selection.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the cellular host response of bone cells (osteoblasts) and soft tissue cells (gingival fibroblasts) to dental cements.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Zinc oxide (eugenol and noneugenol), zinc phosphate, and acrylic resin cements were molded into pellets and directly applied to confluent preosteoblast (cell line MC3T3 E1) or gingival fibroblast cell cultures (cell line HGF) to determine cellular viability after exposure. Controls were defined as confluent cell cultures with no cement exposure. Direct contact cell culture testing was conducted following International Organization for Standardization 10993 methods, and all experiments were performed in triplicate. To compare either the MC3T3 E1 cell line, or the HGF cell line alone, a 1-way ANOVA test with multiple comparisons was used (α=.05). To compare the MC3T3 E1 cell line results and the HGF cell line results, a 2-way ANOVA test with multiple comparisons was used (α=.05).

RESULTS:

The results of this study illustrated that while both bone and soft tissue cell lines were vulnerable to the dental cement test materials, the soft tissue cell line (human gingival fibroblasts) was more susceptible to reduced cellular viability after exposure. The HGF cell line was much more sensitive to cement exposure. Here, the acrylic resin, zinc oxide (eugenol), and zinc phosphate cements significantly reduced cellular viability after exposure with respect to HGF cells only.

CONCLUSIONS:

Within the limitation of this in vitro cellular study, the results indicated that cell response to various implant cements varied significantly, with osteoblast proliferation much less affected than gingival fibroblast cells. Furthermore, the zinc oxide noneugenol dental cement appeared to affect the cell lines significantly less than the other test cements.

PMID:
27927285
DOI:
10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.002
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center