Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
In Vivo
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
In Vivo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit iiar on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleExperimental Studies

Effects of TiO2 Nano Glass Ionomer Cements Against Normal and Cancer Oral Cells

RENE GARCIA-CONTRERAS, ROGELIO J. SCOUGALL-VILCHIS, ROSALIA CONTRERAS-BULNES, YUMIKO KANDA, HIROSHI NAKAJIMA and HIROSHI SAKAGAMI
In Vivo September 2014, 28 (5) 895-907;
RENE GARCIA-CONTRERAS
1Dental and Advanced Studies Research Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Autonomous University State of Mexico, Toluca, Mexico
6Division of Pharmacology, Meikai University School of Dentistry, Sakado, Saitama, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sakagami@dent.meikai.ac.jp dentist.garcia@gmail.com
ROGELIO J. SCOUGALL-VILCHIS
2Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Autonomous University State of Mexico, Toluca, Mexico
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ROSALIA CONTRERAS-BULNES
3Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Autonomous University State of Mexico, Toluca, Mexico
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YUMIKO KANDA
4Department of Electron Microscopy, Meikai University School of Dentistry, Sakado, Saitama, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIROSHI NAKAJIMA
5Division of Dental Biomaterials Science, Meikai University School of Dentistry, Sakado, Saitama, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIROSHI SAKAGAMI
6Division of Pharmacology, Meikai University School of Dentistry, Sakado, Saitama, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sakagami@dent.meikai.ac.jp dentist.garcia@gmail.com
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Incorporation of nanoparticles (NPs) into the glass ionomer cements (GICs) is known to improve their mechanical and antibacterial properties. The present study aimed to investigate the possible cytotoxicity and pro-inflammation effect of three different powdered GICs (base, core build and restorative) prepared with and without titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles. Materials and Methods: Each GIC was blended with TiO2 nanopowder, anatase phase, particle size <25 nm at 3% and 5% (w/w), and the GIC blocks of cements were prepared in a metal mold. The GICs/TiO2 nanoparticles cements were smashed up with a mortar and pestle to a fine powder, and then subjected to the sterilization by autoclaving. Human oral squamous cell carcinoma cell lines (HCS-2, HSC-3, HSC-4, Ca9-22) and human normal oral cells [gingival fibroblast (HGF), pulp (HPC) and periodontal ligament fibroblast (HPLF)] were incubated with different concentrations of GICs in the presence or absence of TiO2 nanoparticles, and the viable cell number was determined by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide method. Prostaglandin E2 was quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Changes in fine cell structure were assessed by transmission electron microscopy. Results: Cancer cells exhibited moderate cytotoxicity after 48 h of incubation, regardless of the type of GIC and the presence or absence of TiO2 NPs. GICs induced much lower cytotoxicity against normal cells, but induced prostaglandin E2 production, in a synergistic wanner with interleukin-1β. Conclusion: The present study shows acceptable to moderate biocompatibility of GICs impregnated with TiO2 nanoparticles, as well as its pro-inflammatory effects at higher concentrations.

  • Glass ionomer cements
  • TiO2 nanoparticles
  • cytotoxicity
  • prostaglandin E2

Particles of nanometric scale so-called nanoparticles possess unique chemical and physical properties in regards to size, size distribution, morphology, polymorphic nature, crystallinity, biocompatibility, biodegradability, drug elution profiles, and aggregation propensity (1). Newly-manufactured bioactive nanoparticles, lately named “Smart” materials, have attracted the interests of many researchers in the field of dental material science (2). Since the introduction of glass ionomer cement (GIC) in 1969 by Wilson and Kent, the cement has been utilized in the lining, bonding, sealing, luting and restoring of tooth (3). The inclusion of glass fiber (4), metals (5), resin (6) and zirconia particles (7) into GIC has improved the mechanical properties. It is necessary to investigate the biocompatibility of GICs with the pulp tissue and surrounding tissues. Both glass powder and polyacrylic acid liquid are composed of various chemicals, some of which may be released during the setting process and may exert cytotoxicity. Many previous studies reported that (i) the cell viability declined by contact to GIC (8-13), (ii) the extent of toxicity depended on the type of cells (14), and (iii) the subcutaneous implantation of GIC induced an inflammatory reaction (15).

Recently, we reported that the incorporation of titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles to GIC enhance the Vickers microhardness, flexural and compressive strength, antibacterial activity and did not interfere with adhesion to enamel and dentin (unpublished data). However, as far as we know, the study of the biocompatibility of GICs impregnated with nanoparticles has not been reported. In the present study, we first investigated the cytotoxicity of base, core build and restorative conventional GIC against human oral normal cells [pulp cells (HPC), gingival fibroblast (HGF), periodontal ligament fibroblast (HPLF)] and human cancer cells [oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC): HSC-2, HSC-3, HSC-4 and gingival carcinoma (Ca9-22)] in the presence and absence of TiO2 nanoparticles. Recently, we reported that TiO2 nanoparticles induced prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) production in synergy with interleukin1β (IL1β) in both HPC and HGF cells, suggesting possible pro-inflammatory action (16). Therefore, secondly, we investigated whether GIC also induce PGE2 in a synergistic fashion with IL1β and/or TiO2 nanoparticles. Thirdly, we investigated the changes in fine cell structure and intracellular uptake of TiO2 nanoparticles by a transmission electron microscope (TEM).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Chemical composition of three glass ionomer cements used in this study.

Materials and Methods

Materials. Three commercially available glass ionomer cements (GICs) were used: Base cement, Core shade cement and FX-II (Shofu Dental Corp. Kyoto, Japan). Chemical compositions of the cements are listed in Table I. The following chemicals and reagents were obtained from the indicated companies: Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM): GIBCO BRL, Grand Island, NY, USA; fetal bovine serum (FBS): JRH Bioscience, Lenexa, KS, USA; Carisolv gel, single mix: MediTeam, Göteborg, Sweden; 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT): Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA; PGE2 assay kit: Cayman Chemical Co., Ann Arbor, MI, USA); IL-1β: R&D Systemes Mineeapolis, MN, USA; culture plastic dishes: 6-well and 96-microwell plates: Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA; dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO): Wako Pure Chem Ind., Osaka, Japan.

Preparation of fine powder of cements with TiO2 nanoparticles. Each GIC was blended with 3% or 5% (w/w) TiO2 nanoparticles, anatase phase, particle size <25 nm (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) (Table I). The cement powder was mixed with the cement liquid under the manufacturer's recommended conditions. The cement mixture was placed into the metallic mold, and then standardized GIC blocks (4×4×1 mm) of cements were prepared in a metal mold. The GICs/TiO2 nanoparticle samples were ground up with a mortar and pestle to yield a fine powder of cements, and then subjected to the sterilization by autoclaving (20 min, 120°C, 2 atm).

Cell culture. Human OSCC (HSC-2, HSC-3, HSC-4) and gingival carcinoma cell lines (Ca9-22) were obtained from (Riken Cell Bank, Tsukuba, Japan). Normal human oral cells (HGF, HPC, HPLF) were prepared from periodontal tissues, as previously reported (17). Cells were cultured at 37°C with in DMEM supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated FBS, 100 units/ml, penicillin G and 100 μg/ml streptomycin sulfate under a humidified atmosphere with 5% CO2. Cells were then harvested by treatment with 0.25% trypsin-0.025% EDTA-2Na in PBS(−) and either subcultured or used for experiments.

Assay for cytotoxic activity. Cells (3×104 cells/0.1 ml) were inoculated into each well of 96-microwell plates and incubated for 48 h to achieve the complete cell adherence. The cements were suspended in DMEM culture medium and were added at 0, 0.62, 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 20 and 40 mg/ml. The cements were incubated for further 48 h. The relative viable cell number was then determined by the MTT method. In brief, the culture medium was replaced with MTT (0.2 mg/ml) dissolved in DMEM, and cells were incubated for 4 h at 37°C. After replacing the medium, the formazan product was dissolved with DMSO, and the absorbance at 540 nm of the lysate was determined by using a microplate reader (Multiskan; Biochromatic Labsystem, Osaka, Japan). The 50% cytotoxic concentration (CC50) was determined from the dose–response curve and the mean CC50 (±S.D.) value of each cement was calculated in triplicate of three independent experiments.

PGE2 production. Near-confluent HPC and HGF cells were treated with different concentrations (0, 1.25, 2.5 and 5 mg/ml) of FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (100:0) and FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (97:3) for 30 min in the fresh culture medium. Cells were induced to produce PGE2 with IL1β (3 ng/ml) for a further 24 h, respectively. The concentration of PGE2 released into the culture supernatant was then determined by ELISA with PGE2 assay kit, according to manufacturer's recommended procedures (16).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Cytotoxic activity of base cement against normal and cancer cells. Values represent the mean±S.D. of three independent experiments.

Fine cell structure. HPC, HPLF and HGF cells were treated with 0, 2.5, and 5 mg/ml of FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (100:0) and FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (97:3) for 3 h. After washing three times with 5 ml of cold PBS(−), the cells were fixed for 1 h with 2% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M cacodylate buffer (pH 7.4) at 4°C. The cells were scraped with a rubber policemen, post-fixed for 90 min with 1% osmium tetraoxide-0.1 M cacodylate buffer (pH 7.4), dehydrated and embedded in Araldite M (CIBA-GEIGY Swiss; NISSHIN EN Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Thin sections were stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, and were then observed under a JEM-1210 transmission electron microscope, Japan Electron Optics Laboratory (JEOL, Co., Ltd Akishima, Tokyo, Japan) (magnification: ×5,000) at an accelerating voltage of 100 kV (18).

Statistical analysis. Data are expressed as the mean±standard deviation (SD). Statistical analysis was performed by paired t-test and ANOVA post-hoc Tukey test using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA). Differences were considered significant at p<0.05.

Results

Cytotoxic activity of GIC. The target cells we used were normal (HPC, HGF, HPLF) and cancer (HSC-2, HSC-3, HSC-4, Ca9-22) cells derived from the oral cavity. Regardless of the presence or absence of TiO2 nanoparticles, cancer cells were found to be more sensitive to GIC, base cement (Table II and Figure 1), core shade (Table III and Figure 2) or FX-II (Table IV and Figure 3), compared to normal cells. This was confirmed by repeated experiments (n=3) that showed that HPC, HPLF and HGF were more resistant (with higher CC50 values) to all cements except for HGF to FX-II:TiO2 NPs (95:5) (CC50=19±2.7 mg/ml) (Table V). The sensitivity of normal and cancerous oral cells to each individual cement was in the following order from more sensitive to less sensitive: (i) Base cement:TiO2 nanoparticles (100:0): Ca9-22>HSC-3>HSC-4>HSC-2>HPC>HPLF> HGF; (ii) base cement:TiO2 nanoparticles (97:3): HSC-2>HSC-3>Ca9-22>HSC-4>HGF> HPC>HPLF; (iii) base cement:TiO2 nanoparticles (95:5): HSC-3>Ca9-22>HSC-4>HSC-2>HPC>HGF>HPLF; (iv) CoreShade cement:TiO2 nanoparticles (100:0): Ca9-22, HSC-3, HSC-4>HSC-2>HGF>HPLF>HPC; (v) CoreShade:TiO2 nanoparticles (97:3): HSC-3>Ca9-22>HSC-2>HSC-4>HGF>HPLF>HPC; (vi) CoreShade:TiO2 nanoparticles (95:5): HSC-3>HSC-2>HSC-4>Ca9-22>HGF>HPLF>HPC; (vii) FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (100:0): HSC-3>HSC-2>Ca9-22>HSC-4>HGF>HPLF>HPC; (viii) FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (97:3): HSC-3>HSC-2>Ca9-22>HSC-4>HGF>HPLF>HPC; (ix) FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (95:5): Ca9-22>HSC-3>HGF>HSC-2>HSC-4>HPLF>HPC. The results confirm that cancer cells were significantly (p<0.05) more sensitive than normal cells to all cements.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Cytotoxicity of glass ionomer cement (GIC): base cement containing different concentrations of TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs). Near-confluent normal (pulp cell HPC, periodontal ligament fibroblast HPLF, gingival fibroblast HGF) (a, c, e) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (HSC-2, HSC-3, HSC-4 and Ca9-22) (b, d, f) cells were incubated for 24 h with the indicated concentrations of base cement:TiO2 NPs (100:0) (a, b), base cement:TiO2 NPs (97:3) (c, d), base cement:TiO2 NPs (95:5) (e, f). After incubation for a further 48 h, the relative viable cell number was determined by the 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay. Each value represents the mean±S.D. of triplicate assays.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Cytotoxic activity of core shade against normal and cancer cells. Values represent the mean±S.D. of three independent experiments.

PGE2 production. IL1β (3 ng/ml) stimulated the production of PGE2 into the culture medium by HPC and HGF cells (Figure 4a and b). FX-II alone also slightly but significantly induced PGE2 production (p<0.05). This stimulatory effect of FX-II was more pronounced in HGF cells compared to HPC cells (Figure 4a and b). The PGE2 induction by FX-II was synergistically enhanced in the presence of IL1β in both HPC and HGF cells.

Similar phenomena were observed in FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (97:3) (Figure 4c and d), where higher production of PGE2 was observed regardless of the presence or absence of IL1β. Furthermore, FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (97:3) and IL1β were also synergistic stimulators of PGE2 production (Figure 4c and d).

Change in fine cell structure. Compared to control HPC, HPLF and HGF cells (Figures 5a, 6a and 7a), cells that had been treated for 3 h with 2.5 or 5 mg/ml of FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (100:0) (Figures 5b, 5c, 6b, 6c, 7b and 7c) or 2.5 or 5 mg/ml of FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (97:3) (Figures 5d, 5e, 6d, 6e, 7d and 7e), showed irregular cell membrane and cytoplasm or nucleus, with many vacuoles containing a flocculent and granular material, but having morphologically-normal Golgi apparatus and mitochondria structures without any pathological change. There were no significant morphological differences regardless the presence or absence of TiO2 nanoparticles.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Cytotoxicity of glass ionomer cement (GIC): core shade that contains various concentrations of TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs). Near-confluent normal (HPC, HPLF, HGF) (a, c, e) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (HSC-2, HSC-3, HSC-4 and Ca9-22) (b, d, f) cells were incubated for 24 h with the indicated concentrations of core shade:TiO2 NPs (100:0) (a, b), core shade:TiO2 NPs (97:3) (c, d), core shade:TiO2 NPs (95:5) (e, f). After incubation for further 48 h, the relative viable cell number was determined by the 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay. Each value represents the mean±S.D. of triplicate assays.

Discussion

The cellular complexity in the stomatognathic system is generated by the presence of various types of cells, and therefore the use of dental materials should make a biological impact on the cells in the teeth and the surrounding tissues. The present study demonstrated that GICs showed weak to moderate cytotoxicity, regardless of GIC composition and the presence or absence of TiO2 nanoparticles, and that oral cancer cells were more sensitive than normal oral cells. It has been reported that upon contact with conventional GIC, an immortalized cell line NIH3T3, mouse fibroblast showed the total loss of cell viability after 24 h of incubation (9). Upon contact with conventional and resin-modified GIC, NIH3T3 and UMR-106 osteoblast showed reduced viable cell number, where the resin-modified GIC exhibit were more toxic than conventional one (10), confirming the cytotoxicity of the resin-modified GIC used for orthodontic prescription against L929 (cell line mouse) fibroblast (11). Furthermore, GIC containing silver particles showed acceptable biocompatibility with slight inflammatory response that is reduced through culture against NIH3T3 and UMR-106 (12). The cytotoxicity of GICs can be attributed to aluminum phosphate and calcium fluoride in the cement powder, and acidic and irritating cement liquid (13). It has been reported that in vitro cytotoxicity rapidly declined with time of setting process, possibly due to the formation of stable reaction products from the cytotoxic components. This was apparently contradictory from the present results that used the powders prepared by mixing the GIC liquid and different ratios of TiO2 nanoparticles and ground up after completion of the hardness reaction. The degree of toxicity of GIC may also depend on the type of cell line (14).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Cytotoxic activity of base cement against normal and cancer cells. Values represent the mean±S.D. of three independent experiments.

It has been reported that subcutaneous implantation of GIC into rats induced an inflammatory reaction, generating granulomas with macrophages in the peripheral area of the material and the cytoplasm of cells was either vacuolated or impregnated with particles of the material (15). The present study also demonstrated that FX-II induced PGE2 production, in a synergistic fashion with IL1β and TiO2 nanoparticles in both HPC and HGF cells, suggesting the possible induction and aggravation of inflammation. Endotoxin contamination in TiO2 nanoparticles sample was found to be negligible (16).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Cytotoxicity of glass ionomer cement (GIC): FX-II that contains various concentrations of TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs). Near-confluent normal (HPC, HPLF, HGF) (a, c, e) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (HSC-2, HSC-3, HSC-4 and Ca9-22) (b, d, f) cells were incubated for 24 h with the indicated concentrations of FX-II:TiO2 NPs (100:0) (a, b), FX-II:TiO2 NPs (97:3) (c, d), FX-II:TiO2 NPs (95:5) (e, f). After incubation for further 48 h, the relative viable cell number was determined by the 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2yl]-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay. Each value represents the mean±S.D. of triplicate assays.

Clinically, acidic release from GIC during setting represents a possible source of injury to pulp cells following tubular diffusion and emphasizing the need for a barrier to such diffusion. We have previously reported that the FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (97:3) improved the mechanical and antibacterial properties, compared to conventional GIC (unpublished data). The present study demonstrated that FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (97:3) showed slightly higher PGE2-producing activity than FX-II. It should be emphasized that the present results should not be interpreted as an indicator that any of the GICs here examined have significant potential toxicity when placed in the intact dentine. Basically, it is important to use a barrier prior to setting the cement to prevent the irritability and incorporation into the dental tissue, as well as to handle the GICs correctly to avoid inflammatory responses in the surrounding tissues.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Synergistic stimulation of PGE2 production by glass ionomer cements (GICs): FX-II containing different concentrations of TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs) and IL1β. Near confluent HPC (a, c) and HGF (b, d) cells were pre-treated for 3 h with the indicated concentrations of FX-II:TiO2 NPs (100:0) (a, b), FX-II:TiO2 NPs (97:3) (c, d). Cells were then induced to inflammation with (●) or without (○) IL1β (3 ng/ml) and incubated for a further 24 h. The concentration of PGE2 in the culture medium was determined by ELISA. Each value represents the mean±S.D. by triplicate assays. *p<0.05, **p<0.01 paired t-test.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table V.

Cytotoxicity of glass ionomer cements (GIC) containing different percentage of TiO2 NPs against normal and cancer cells. Values represent mean±S.D. of three independent experiments.

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Fine cell structure of HPC cells after 3 h contact to without (a) and with 2.5 (b) or 5 (c) mg/ml FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs) (100:0) or 2.5 (d) or 5 (e) mg/ml FX-II:TiO2 NPs (97:3). The cells were then fixed for observation under TEM.

Figure 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6.

Fine cell structure of HPLF cells after 3 h contact without (a) or with 2.5 (b) or 5 (c) mg/ml FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs) (100:0) or 2.5 (d) or 5 (e) mg/ml FX-II:TiO2 NPs (97:3). The cells were then fixed for observation under TEM.

Figure 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 7.

Fine cell structure of HGF cells after 3 h contact without (a) or with 2.5 (b) or 5 (c) mg/ml FX-II:TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs) (100:0) or 2.5 (d) or 5 (e) mg/ml FX-II:TiO2 NPs (97:3). The cells were then fixed for observation under TEM.

We considered that autoclaving may alter the cement characteristics because the glass ionomer material contains the water molecule in the structure and continues the setting reaction for as long as one or two months, thus affecting the experimental results. To avoid this complexity, we have prepared the fine powder of cement composed of the glass ionomer material and TiO2 nanoparticles, and investigated its biological effects as a pilot experiment. However, when the biological impact of contact to the solid cement is investigated, milder sterilization methods with either ethylene oxide, γ-ray or ultraviolet irradiation should be used.

  • Received March 27, 2014.
  • Revision received May 26, 2014.
  • Accepted May 27, 2014.
  • Copyright © 2014 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Uskoković V
    : Entering the era of nanoscience: time to be so small. J Biomed Nanothechnol 9: 1441-14470, 2013.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. McCabe JF,
    2. Yan Z,
    3. Al Naimi OT,
    4. Mahmoud G,
    5. Rolland SL
    : Smart materials in dentistry. Aust Dent J 56(Suppl 1): 3-10, 2011.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Sidhu SK
    : Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: A sticky subject? Aust Dent J 56(Suppl 1): 23-30, 2011.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Hammouda IMN
    : Addition of glass fibers to conventional glass ionomer and composite resin restorative materials. Int J Mat Sci 2: 123-136, 2007.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Bala O,
    2. Arisu HD,
    3. Yikilgan I,
    4. Arslan S,
    5. Gullu A
    : Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. Eur J Dent 6: 79-86, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Kumar MK,
    2. Pujar M
    : In vitro evaluation of microleakage of class II packable composite resin restorations using flowable composite and resin modified glass ionomers as intermediate layers. J Conserv Dent 14: 414-417, 2001.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Gu YW,
    2. Yap AUJ,
    3. Cheang P,
    4. Koh YL,
    5. Khor KA
    : Development of zirconia–glass ionomer cement composites. J Non Cryst Solids 351: 508-514, 2005.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Costa CAS,
    2. Hebling J,
    3. Garcia-Godoy F,
    4. Hanks CT
    : In vitro cytotoxicity of five glass-ionomer cements. Biomaterials 24: 3853-3858, 2003.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Dantas RVF,
    2. Conde MCM,
    3. Sarmento HR,
    4. Zanchi CH,
    5. Tarquinio SBC,
    6. Agliari FA,
    7. Demarco FF
    : Novel experimental cements for use on the dentin-pulp complex. Braz Dent J 23: 344-350, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Selimovic-Dragas M,
    2. Huseinbegovic A,
    3. Kobaslija S,
    4. Haribovic-Kofman S
    : A comparison of the in vitro cytotoxicity of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements. Bosn J Basic Med Sci 12: 273-278, 2012.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Dos Santos RL,
    2. Melo PM,
    3. Martins FO,
    4. Romanos MTV,
    5. Ruellas ACO
    : Evaluation of cytotoxicity and degree of conversion of glass ionomer cements reinforced with resin. Eur J Orthodont 34: 362-366, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Blackman R
    : An evaluation of the biocompatibility of glass ionomer-silver cement in rat connective tissue. J Endod 4: 429-440, 1989.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Kawahara H,
    2. Imanishi Y,
    3. Oshima H
    : Biological evaluation on glass ionomer cement. J Dent Res 58: 1080-1086, 1979.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Moneda KC,
    2. Casas-Apotco LC,
    3. Atta MT,
    4. Cos CA,
    5. Hebling J,
    6. Spidert CR,
    7. Navarro MF,
    8. Santos CF
    : Cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of direct and indirect capping materials. J Appl Oral Sci 17: 544-554, 2009.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Carneiro VM,
    2. Roberto LM,
    3. Consolaro A,
    4. da Silva MF
    : Biological compatibility of some types of endodontic calcium hydroxide and glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 12: 294-300, 2004.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Garcia-Contreras R,
    2. Scougall-Vilchis RJ,
    3. Contreras-Bulnes R,
    4. Kanda Y,
    5. Nakajima H,
    6. Sakagami H
    : Induction of prostaglandin E2 production by TiO2 nanoparticles in human gingival fibroblast. In Vivo 28: 209-216, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Kantoh K,
    2. Ono M,
    3. Nakamura Y,
    4. Nakamura Y,
    5. Hashimoto K,
    6. Sakagami H,
    7. Wakabayashi H
    : Hormetic and anti-radiation effects of tropolone-related compounds. In Vivo 24: 843-852, 2010.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Sekine T,
    2. Takahashi J,
    3. Nishishiro M,
    4. Arai A,
    5. Wakabayashi H,
    6. Kurihara T,
    7. Kobayashi M,
    8. Hashimoto K,
    9. Kikuchi H,
    10. Katayama T,
    11. Kanda Y,
    12. Kinii S,
    13. Motohashi N,
    14. Sakagami H
    : Tumor-specificity and type of cell death induced by trihaloacetylazulenes in human tumor cell lines. Anticancer Res 27: 133-144, 2007.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

In Vivo: 28 (5)
In Vivo
Vol. 28, Issue 5
September-October 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on In Vivo.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effects of TiO2 Nano Glass Ionomer Cements Against Normal and Cancer Oral Cells
(Your Name) has sent you a message from In Vivo
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the In Vivo web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Effects of TiO2 Nano Glass Ionomer Cements Against Normal and Cancer Oral Cells
RENE GARCIA-CONTRERAS, ROGELIO J. SCOUGALL-VILCHIS, ROSALIA CONTRERAS-BULNES, YUMIKO KANDA, HIROSHI NAKAJIMA, HIROSHI SAKAGAMI
In Vivo Sep 2014, 28 (5) 895-907;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Effects of TiO2 Nano Glass Ionomer Cements Against Normal and Cancer Oral Cells
RENE GARCIA-CONTRERAS, ROGELIO J. SCOUGALL-VILCHIS, ROSALIA CONTRERAS-BULNES, YUMIKO KANDA, HIROSHI NAKAJIMA, HIROSHI SAKAGAMI
In Vivo Sep 2014, 28 (5) 895-907;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Systemic Administration of Lipopolysaccharide from Porphyromonas gingivalis Decreases Neprilysin Expression in the Mouse Hippocampus
  • Monitoring T-Cell Kinetics in the Early Recovery Period of Lung Transplantation Cases by Copy Number Levels of T-Cell Receptor Excision Circle
  • Successful Surgical Outcome of Feline Inductive Odontogenic Tumor in Three Cats
Show more Experimental Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Glass ionomer cements
  • TiO2 nanoparticles
  • cytotoxicity
  • prostaglandin E2
In Vivo

© 2023 In Vivo

Powered by HighWire