Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add filters








Language
Year range
1.
J. oral res. (Impresa) ; 4(1): 12-18, feb.2015. tab
Article in English | LILACS | ID: lil-776892

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to compare the cytotoxic effect of threematerials, which have been used for treating dental hypersensitivity. Materialand method: In vitro study. Clinpro (3M Co, St. Paul, MN. USA), Seal & Protect(Dentsply, DeTrey GmbH. Germany) and UltraEZ (Ultradent Products,Inc., S. South Jordan UT. USA) were used at concentrations of 0.1, 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001g/ml on human gingival fibroblasts. Furthermore, Clinpro and Seal & Protect were applied to this cell culture as polymerized disks. Toxicity was assessed at 24 and 48 hours by the use of the cell viability assay (MTT). Statistical analysis for cell viability was performed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test. Statistical significance was set at 5 percent. Results: Seal & Protect and Clinpro were found to be highly toxic at 24 and 48 hours, reaching 70 percent toxicity at concentrations over 0.01g/ml. Seal & Protect and Clinpro polymerized disks were toxic at 24 and 48 hours. UltraEZ showed an increased between 46 percent and 67 percent in cell viability at 24 hours and between 8 percent and 45 percent at 48 hours. Statistical analysis showed differences between these three desensitizers when comparing concentration and control group (p<0.05). Discussion: UltraEZ did not have a cytotoxic effect and may be considered a compatible and safe material, whereas polymerized and non-polymerized Clinpro and Seal & Protect should be used with caution...


Introduccion: El proposito de este estudio es comparar el efecto citotoxico de tres materiales que se han utilizado para el tratamiento de la hipersensibilidad dental. Material y metodo: Estudio in-vitro. Los desensibilizantes dentinarios Clinpro (3M ESPE), Seal&Protect (Dentsply) yUltraEZ (Ultradent) fueron utilizados a concentraciones de 0,1; 0,05; 0,01 y 0,001 g/ml sobre cultivos celulares de fibroblastos gingivales humanos. Ademas, Clinpro y Seal&Protect se aplicaron a este cultivo celular como discos polimerizados. La toxicidad se evaluo a 24 y 48 horas mediante ensayo de viabilidad (MTT). El analisis estadistico para la viabilidad celular se realizo mediante ANOVA de dos vias seguido de analisis Tukey. La significancia estadistica se fijo al 5 por ciento. Resultados: Clinpro y Seal&Protect resultaron ser altamente toxicos a las 24 y 48 horas, alcanzando un 70 por ciento de toxicidad aconcentraciones superiores de 0,01 g/ml. Los discos polimerizadosde Clinpro y Seal&Protect fueron toxicos a 24 y 48 horas. UltraEZ produjo un aumento de la viabilidad celular entre un 46 por ciento y 67 por ciento a las 24 horas y entre un 8 por ciento y 45 por ciento a las 48 horas. El analisis estadistico mostro diferencias entreestos tres desensibilizantes al comparar la concentracion y su grupo control (p<0,05). Discusion: UltraEZ no tuvo efecto citotoxico y puede ser considerado como un material compatible y seguro para ser utilizado, mientras que Clinpro y Seal&Protect en su estado polimerizado y no polimerizado deberian ser utilizados con precaucion...


Subject(s)
Humans , Dentin Desensitizing Agents/toxicity , Gingiva , Fibroblasts , Dentin Sensitivity/therapy , Analysis of Variance , Cell Survival , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL