Premium
Acoustic energy affects human gingival fibroblast proliferation but leaves protein production unchanged
Author(s) -
Jones Heather,
Feth Lawrence,
Rumpf Deborah,
Hefti Arthur,
Mariotti Angelo
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027011832.x
Subject(s) - periodontium , fibroblast , toothbrush , dentistry , medicine , stimulation , andrology , materials science , biomedical engineering , in vitro , chemistry , biochemistry , brush , composite material
Background, aims: Sonic toothbrushes are well‐established in oral home care for plaque removal; however, the effects of low frequency acoustic (sonic) energy released from sonic toothbrushes to the cells of the periodontium have not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of sonic energy on human gingival fibroblast proliferation and protein production in cell culture. Methods: Direct and indirect transfer calibration studies found the fundamental frequency of the Sonicare ® sonic toothbrush to be 261 hertz (Hz) with amplitudes ranging from 70 to 104 decibels (dB) in the human periodontium. Using an in vitro delivery system, which coupled a signal‐wave generator with a bone transducer to mimic the energy delivered by the Sonicare ® toothbrush, the effects of signal, amplitude and duration were evaluated longitudinally using a gingival fibroblast cell culture model. 8 strains of fibroblasts isolated from healthy human gingiva were seeded at 30,000 cells/35 mm culture dish in minimum essential medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum. To ascertain the relationship of the amplitude and the duration of sonic stimulation to cellular proliferation, gingival fibroblasts were subjected 2× daily to 261 Hz sound at various amplitudes (67–97 dB) for 0, 15, 30, 60, and 120 s on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10. Results: It was found that either 30 or 120 s of sound exposure for 10 days of treatment had significant effects on cell proliferation in comparison to control cultures. Specifically, at day 10, 87 dB at 261 Hz for 30 s 2× daily resulted in a 25.5% increase in cell number ( p <0.001), whereas 87 dB at 261 Hz for 120 s twice daily caused a 30.9% decrease in cell number ( p <0.001) when compared to control cultures. When cells are stimulated under optimum acoustic conditions for 10 days, there was no difference between the treatment and control groups for collagen ( p =0.897) or noncollagen ( p =0.697) protein production. Conclusions: Sonic energy has been shown to both increase and decrease cellular proliferation depending on exposure time; however, during optimum sound‐induced conditions for cellular proliferation, sonic energy had no effect on fibroblast protein production. These data suggest that sonic energy can affect the behavior of cells in culture. Further research into the mechanisms of these changes will provide important information for manipulating cellular behavior.