Biocompatibility of a Conventional Glass Ionomer, Ceramic Reinforced Glass Ionomer, Giomer and Resin Composite to Fibroblasts: In vitro Study

This aim of this study was at compare the fibroblast cytotoxicicty of four restorative materials - a conventional glass ionomer cement (GC Fuji Type II GIC), a ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cement (Amalgomer), a giomer (Beautifil II) and a resin composite (Filtek Z350) at three different time periods (24, 48 and 72 hours). Method: The succinyl dehydrogenase (MTT) assay was employed. Cylindrical specimens of each material (n=15) were prepared and stored in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium, following which L929 fibroblasts were cultured in 96 well plates. After 24 hours of incubation, the MTT assay was performed to detect the cell viability. The method was repeated after 48 and 72 hours. The impact of materials and exposure times on cytotoxicity of fibroblasts was statistically analyzed using two way ANOVA (P=0.05). Results: Both time and material had an impact on cell viability, with giomer demonstrating the maximum cell viability at all time periods. The cell viability in the giomer group was significantly different from all other materials at 24 and 72 hours (P<0.05), while at 48 hours giomer was significantly different only with resin composite (P<0.05). Conclusions: Giomers showed better biocompatibility than conventional and ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cements and, resin composite. Ceramic reinforced glass ionomer demonstrated superior biocompatibility compared to conventional glass ionomer.

Biocompatibility, fibroblast, glass ionomer cement, giomer, resin composite

1. Geurtsen W. Substances released from dental resin composites and glass ionomer cements. Eur J Oral Sci; 106: 687-95. 1996.

2. Sainulabdeen S, Neelakantan P, Ramesh S, Subbarao CV. Antibacterial activity of triclosan incorporated glass ionomer cements – An in vitro pilot study. J Clin Pediatr Dent; 35: 157–62. 2010.

3. Chang HJ, Wu CM, Chang YC, Fanchiang JC, Shieh DB, Wong TY. Collagen enhances compatibility and strength of glass ionomers. J Dent Res; 88: 449-54. 2009.

4. Gurunathan D and Tandon S. A clinical evaluation of two glass ionomer cements in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment technique in India: 1 year follow up. Int J Paediatr Dent; 20: 410– 18. 2010.

5. Wang Y, Darvell BW. Hertzian load-bearing capacity of a ceramic - reinforced glass ionomer cement stored wet and dry. Dent Mater; 25: 952-55. 2009.

6. Toshiyuki I, Al-Naimi OT, Carrick TE, Yoshiyama M, McCabe JF. Fluoride release from aged resin composites containing fluoridated glass filler. Dent Mater; 21: 1033–38. 2005.

7. Wataha JC, Hanks CT, Strawn SE, Fat JC. Cytotoxicity of components of resins and other dental restorative materials. J Oral Rehab; 21: 453-62. 1994.

8. Quinlan CA, Zisterer DM, Tipton KF, O’Sullivan MI. In vitro cytotoxicity of a composite resin and compomer. Int Endod J; 35: 47-55. 2002.

9. Moharamzadeh K, Van Noort R, Brook IM, Scutt AM. Cytotoxicity of resin monomers on human gingival fibroblasts and HaCaT keratinocytes. Dent Mater; 23: 40-4. 2007.

10. Meryon SD, Stephens PG, Browne RM. A comparison of the in vitro cytotoxicity of two glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res; 62: 769-73. 1983.

11. Caughman WF, Caughman GB, Dominy WT, Schuster GS. Glass ionomer and composite resin cements: effects on oral cells. J Prosthet Dent; 63: 513-21. 1990.

12. Yan F, Xiao Y, Li H, Haase H, Bartold PM. A comparison of the effects of two kinds of glass-ionomer cement on human gingival fibroblast attachment, proliferation and morphology in vitro. J Int Acad Periodontol; 2: 14-8. 2000.

13. Yoshimine Y, Yamamoto M, Ogasawara T, Koishi K, Tanabe K, Hashiguchi I, Akamine A. In vitro evaluation of the cytocompatibility of a glass-ionomer cement sealer. J Endod; 29: 453-55. 2003.

14. Telli C, Serper A, Dogan AL, Guc D. Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of calcium phosphate root canal sealers by MTT assay. J Endod; 25: 811–13. 1999.

15. Itota T, Carrick TE, Yoshiyama M, McCabe JF. Fluoride release and recharge in giomer, compomer and resin composite. Dent Mater; 20: 789- 95. 2004.

16. Vermeersch G, Leloup G, Vreven J. Fluoride release from glass-ionomer cements, compomers and resin composites. J Oral Rehab; 28: 26–32. 2001.

17. Fujimoto Y, Iwasa M, Murayama R, Miyazaki M, Nagafuji A, Nakatsuka T. Detection of ions released from S-PRG fillers and their modulation effect. Dent Mater J; 29: 392–97. 2010.

18. Li P, Ohtsuki C, Kokubo T, Nakanishi K, Soga N, Nakamura T, Yamamuro T. Effects of ions in aqueous media on hydroxyapatite induction by silica gel and its relevance to bioactivity of bioactive glasses and glass- ceramics. J Appl Biomater; 4: 221-29. 1993.

19. Hatton PV, Hurrell-Gillingham K, Brook IM. Biocompatibility of glass – ionomer bone cements. J Dent; 34: 598-601. 2006.

20. Mousavinasab SM, Meyers I. Fluoride release by glass ionomer cements, compomer and giomer. J Dent Res ; 6: 75-81. 2009.

21. Xie D, Chung I D, Wu W, Mays J. Synthesis and evaluation of HEMA-free glass-ionomer cements for dental applications. Dent Mater; 20: 470–78. 2004.

22. Adams AM, Soames JV, Searle RF. Cytotoxicity studies of dental restorative materials using human periodontal ligament cells in vitro. Int Endod J; 27: 171-77. 1994.