Cytotoxicity of orthodontic elastics: In vitro investigation with on L929 mouse fibroblasts

Aim: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the cytotoxicity among natural latex elastics of different manufacturers using a L929 cell line culture. Methods: Different latex intraoral elastics (I.D. = 5/16", 4.5 oz.) were tested. The sample was divided into 7 groups of 15 elastic...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBrazilian journal of oral sciences Vol. 9; no. 3
Main Authors Rogério Lacerda dos Santos, Matheus Melo Pithon, Fernanda Otaviano Martins, Maria Teresa Villela Romanos
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Universidade Estadual de Campinas 01.11.2015
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Aim: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the cytotoxicity among natural latex elastics of different manufacturers using a L929 cell line culture. Methods: Different latex intraoral elastics (I.D. = 5/16", 4.5 oz.) were tested. The sample was divided into 7 groups of 15 elastics each: Group AO (American Orthodontics), Group GAC (GAC International), Group TP (TP Orthodontics), Group AD (Aditek), Group AB (Abzil), Group MO (Morelli) and Group UN (Uniden). Cytotoxicity assays were performed by using cell culture medium containing L-929 line cells (mouse fibroblast). The cytotoxicity was evaluated by using the “dye-uptake” test, which was employed at two different moments (1 and 24 h). Data were compared by ANOVA and Tukey’s test (P < 0.05). Results: The results showed a significant difference (P < 0.05) between all groups and the group CC (cell control) at 1 and 24 h. Groups AD, AB, MO and UN were noticeably more cytotoxic than the groups AO, GAC and TP at 1 h. After 24 h, a significant decrease in cell viability was observed in all groups. Conclusions: Intraoral elastics from American Orthodontics, GAC and TP Orthodontics trademarks induced less cell lysis than Aditek, Abzil, Morelli and Uniden trademarks
ISSN:1677-3225
DOI:10.20396/bjos.v9i3.8641794