Premium
Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of latex and non‐latex orthodontic separating elastics
Author(s) -
Dos Santos RL,
Pithon MM,
Martins FO,
Romanos MTV,
De Oliveira Ruellas AC
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
orthodontics and craniofacial research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1601-6343
pISSN - 1601-6335
DOI - 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2009.01469.x
Subject(s) - biocompatible material , dentistry , cytotoxicity , significant difference , interdental consonant , natural materials , medicine , chemistry , biomedical engineering , in vitro , polymer science , biochemistry
To cite this article:
dos Santos RL, Pithon MM, Martins FO, Romanos MTV, de Oliveira Ruellas AC:
Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of latex and non‐latex orthodontic separating elastics
Orthod Craniofac Res 2010; 13 :28–33 Structured Abstract Authors – dos Santos RL, Pithon MM, Martins FO, Romanos MTV, de Oliveira Ruellas AC Objective – To test the hypothesis that a difference in cytotoxicity exists between latex and non‐latex orthodontic separating elastics. Material and Methods – Five intra‐oral separating elastics from different manufactures (four latex and one non‐latex) were divided into five groups of 15 elastics each: Group MA (non‐latex elastics, Masel), Group MO (natural latex, Morelli), Group DE (natural latex, Dentaurum), Group TP (natural latex, TP Orthodontics) and Group UN (natural latex, Unitek). The cytotoxicity assay was performed using cell cultures (epithelial HEp‐2 cells originating from human laryngeal carcinoma) that were submitted to the cell viability test with neutral red (dye‐uptake) at 24, 48, 72 and 168 h. Analysis of variance ( anova ) with multiple comparisons and Tukey's test were employed ( p < 0.05). Results – The results showed no statistically significant differences between groups MA, DE, TP and UN in relation to Group CC (cell control) for experimental times of 24, 48 and 168 h ( p > 0.05). Morelli, Dentaurum, TP Orthodontics and Unitek elastics induced a great amount of cell lyses at 72 h. Conclusion – One can demonstrate that the Masel elastic induced less cell lysis compared with other elastics, but all trademarks were found to be clinically biocompatible. Clinical relevance – Separating orthodontic elastics are used in the interdental subgingival region with the aim to separate the teeth for placement of orthodontic bands. However, latex has been known to cause allergy. As these materials are widely used in clinical orthodontics, care regarding the cytotoxicity of orthodontic elastics should be taken. Thus, clinically proven biocompatible materials should be acquired whenever possible.