Citation Information :
P, Vaibhav V, Kumar K, Thota SK, Yaqoob A, Awinashe V, Sayed AJ. An In Vitro Assessment of Cytotoxicity of Polyvinyl Siloxane, Polyether, and Polyvinyl Ether Silicone on NIH/3T3 Cells. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (11):1262-1265.
Aim and objective: Cytotoxicity of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS), polyether (PE), and polyvinyl ether silicone (PVES) on NIH/3T3 cells. Materials and methods: This in vitro study used elastomeric impression materials which were divided into three groups, group I, II, and III with PVES (EXA'lence light body), PVS (Flexceed light body), and PE impression material (Impregum), respectively. A total of 10 specimens were prepared. Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium was used for growing mouse cell line NIH/3T3. Cytotoxicity level of all elastomers was measured with the test 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2-5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay at regular intervals. Results: There was a decline in the survival rate with PVES as found on day 1, PVS and PE showed on 3rd and 7th day. Kruskal–Wallis test showed a significant difference in all groups at various days (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Authors found that PVES showed early cytotoxic signs as compared to PVS and PE. Cell viability for PVS was highest as compared to PVES and PE impression materials. Clinical implication: Cell viability for PVS was highest as compared to PVES and PE impression materials. This information is useful in the selection of impression materials.
Eames WB, Wallace SW, Suway NB, et al. Accuracy and dimensional stability of elastomeric impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42(2):159–162. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(79)90166-5.
Ciesco JN, Malone WF, Sandrik JL, et al. Comparison of elastomeric impression materials used in fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45(1):89–94. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90018-4.
Blankenau RJ, Kelsey WP, Cavel WT. A possible allergic response to polyether impression material: a case report. J Am Dent Assoc 1984;108(4):609–610. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1984.0357.
Rafael CF, Liebermann A. Clinical characteristics of an allergic reaction to a polyether dental impression material. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117(4):470–472. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.031.
Kwon JS, Lee SB, Kim KM, et al. Positive control for cytotoxicity evaluation of dental vinyl polysiloxane impression materials using sodium lauryl sulfate. Acta Odontol Scand 2014;72(8):618–622. DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2013.879996.
Sydiskis RJ, Gerhardt DE. Cytotoxicity of impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69(4):431–435. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90193-R.
Mittermüller P, Szeimies RM, Landthaler M, et al. A rareallergy to a polyether dental impression material. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16(4):1111–1116. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0618-8.
Wenzelewski DIK, Tinkler J, Cook P, et al., Biological and clinical evaluation of medical devices. https://www.iso.org/committee/54508.html. [Last cited on 2020 July 24].
Rejmontová P, Capáková Z, Mikušová N, et al. Adhesion, proliferation and migration of NIH/3T3 cells on modified polyaniline surfaces. Int J Mol Sci 2016;17(9):1439. DOI: 10.3390/ijms17091439.
Sakaguchi R, Powers J. Craigs Restorative Dental Materials. 13th ed., St. Louis: Elsevier; 2012.
Roberta T, Federico M, Federica B, et al. Study of the potential cytotoxicity of dental impression materials. Toxicol In Vitro 2003;17(5-6):657–662. DOI: 10.1016/S0887-2333(03)00107-3.
Mosmann T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods 1983;65(1-2):55–63. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1759(83)90303-4.
Stone V, Johnston H, Schins RP. Development of in vitro systems for nanotoxicology: methodological considerations. Crit Rev Toxicol 2009;39(7):613–626. DOI: 10.1080/10408440903120975.
Rajasimhan NV, Jayaraman S, Ali DJ, et al. Evaluation of cytotoxicity levels of poly vinyl ether silicone, polyether, and poly vinyl siloxane impression materials: an in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019;19(4):332–337. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_261_19.
Jeng HW, Feigal RJ, Messer HH. Comparison of the cytotoxicity of formocresol, formaldehyde, cresol, and glutaraldehyde using human pulp fibroblast cultures. Pediatr Dent 1987;9(4):295–300.
Nassar U, Oko A, Adeeb S, et al. An in vitro study on the dimensional stability of a vinyl polyether silicone impression material over a prolonged storage period. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109(3):172–178. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60038-4.
Chen SY, Chen CC, Kuo HW. Cytotoxicity of dental impression materials. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2002;69(3):350–355. DOI: 10.1007/s00128-002-0069-7.
Aslanturk OS, Askın Celik T, Karabey B, et al. Active phytochemical detecting, antioxidant, cytotoxic, apoptotic activities of ethyl acetate and methanol extracts of Gallium aparine L. Br J Pharma Res 2017;15(6):1–16.
Boraldi F, Coppi C, Bortolini S, et al. Cytotoxic evaluation of elastomeric dental impression materials on a permanent mouse cell line and on a primary human gingival fibroblast culture. Materials 2009;2(3):934–944.
Augustine D, Rao RS, Anbu J, et al. In vitro antiproliferative effect of earthworm coelomic fluid of Eudrilus eugeniae, Eisenia foetida, and Perionyx excavatus on squamous cell carcinoma-9 cell line: a pilot study. Phcog Res 2017;9(Suppl 1):61–66. DOI: 10.4103/pr. pr_52_17.
Augustine D, Rao RS, Anbu J, et al. Anticancer prospects of earthworm extracts: a systematic review of in vitro and in vivo studies. Phcog Rev 2018;12(23):46–55. DOI: 10.4103/phrev.phrev_45_17.
Augustine D, Rao RS, Jayaraman A, et al. Anti-proliferative activity of earthworm coelomic fluid using oral squamous carcinoma KB 3-1 cells: an in vitro study with serine protease analysis. Phcog Mag 2018;14(59):528–534. DOI: 10.4103/pm.pm_412_18.
