Next Article in Journal
Surface Modification of Nanoporous Anodic Alumina during Self-Catalytic Atomic Layer Deposition of Silicon Dioxide from (3-Aminopropyl)Triethoxysilane
Next Article in Special Issue
New and Recovered Temporary Anchorage Devices, In Vitro Assessment of Structural and Surface Properties
Previous Article in Journal
Gamma-Ray Attenuation and Exposure Buildup Factor of Novel Polymers in Shielding Using Geant4 Simulation
Previous Article in Special Issue
In Vitro Study on the Adhesive Performance of Some Resin-Based Materials Used to Restore Class II Cavities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 14
Issue 17
10.3390/ma14175049
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cytotoxic Effects on Gingival Mesenchymal Stromal Cells and Root Surface Modifications Induced by Some Local Antimicrobial Products Used in Periodontitis Treatment

by
Irina Lupșe
1,†,
Emoke Pall
2,†,
Lucian Barbu Tudoran
3,4,
Adriana Elena Bulboacă
5,
Andreea Ciurea
6,
Iulia Cristina Micu
6,
Alexandra Roman
6,*,
Ada Gabriela Delean
7,
Alexandrina Muntean
1 and
Andrada Soancă
6
1
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Avram Iancu St., No. 31, 400083 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Department of Infectious Disease, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 3-5 Mănăștur St., 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3
Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnologies, Faculty of Biology and Geology, Babeş-Bolyai University, Clinicilor St., No. 5-7, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
4
Electron Microscopy Integrated Laboratory (LIME), National Institute for Research and Development of Isotopic and Molecular Technologies, INCDTIM, 67-103 Donath St., 400293 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
5
Department of Pathophysiology, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 4-6 Victor Babeș St., 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
6
Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Victor Babeş St., No. 15, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
7
Department of Odontology and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Iuliu Haţieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
The authors contributed equally to the present study and can be regarded, therefore, as being main authors.
Materials 2021, 14(17), 5049; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175049
Submission received: 22 July 2021 / Revised: 30 August 2021 / Accepted: 31 August 2021 / Published: 3 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Dental Composite Materials and Biomaterials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: this study aims to test the cytotoxicity of three antimicrobial products used in periodontitis treatment on gingival mesenchymal stem cells (gMSCs) and their influence on root surfaces and gMSC adhesion. We tested the null hypothesis that the effects of the antimicrobials did not differ. (2) Methods: the commercial products based on sulphonic/sulphuric acids, sodium hypochlorite and silver nanoparticles, in five different concentrations, were added to culture medium for growing gMSCs. Cell proliferation capacity was tested using the Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK8) and their viability was determined by succinate dehydrogenase activity (MTT) assay. Scanning electron microscopy evaluated the adhesion of gMSCs on root samples treated mechanically and with commercial products. (3) Results: the products induced a dose-dependent cytotoxicity in terms of reduced proliferation and viability of gMSCs, as well as cell shape modifications. Significant differences in CCK8 values between the different commercial products were observed. Based on proliferation tests, the null hypothesis was rejected. When MTT values of the three products were compared with each other, no significant differences were observed for any of the five concentrations (p = 0.065, p = 0.067, p = 0.172, p = 0.256, p = 0.060). (4) Conclusions: the three antimicrobials had a certain degree of cytotoxicity on gMSCs. gMSCs repopulated treated root surfaces.

1. Introduction

Periodontitis is an infectious disease which leads to the inflammatory destruction of the periodontal ligament and alveolar bone [1]. Severe forms of periodontitis could induce tooth loss as well as important systemic consequences [2]. Treatment of periodontitis firstly aims to prevent further periodontal loss through severe reduction of local bacterial load [3] by professional subgingival instrumentation and patient-related approaches. By eliminating the infectious aetiology from the subgingival areas, subgingival instrumentation is considered the gold standard of periodontal therapy in all forms of periodontitis [4] and its clinical efficacy is well documented by previous or more recent systematic reviews [5,6,7,8]. Deep periodontal pockets or local anatomical risk factors such as furcation involvement or root concavities limit the access of professional subgingival instrumentation, thus, resulting in the persistence of the periodontal infection [9]. The use of locally delivered adjunctive products during subgingival instrumentation in periodontitis patients could improve clinical outcomes [5,7] as it has been shown that this therapy provides an antimicrobial effect [10] and facilitates the removal of subgingival deposits, dead tissue debris, and inflammatory exudates [11,12]. Nonetheless, the possible deleterious effects of the subgingival application of adjunctive antimicrobials on periodontal constituents also needs to be considered [13,14].
Periodontal tissues contain mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) [15] capable of restoring structure and function, but the intrinsic regenerative capacity of the periodontium is limited [16]. Periodontal MSCs communicate with their immediate surroundings and adjacent cells yielding cell-based responses which are deemed to be therapeutically favourable in terms of tissue reconstruction [15]. However, minimal changes in the microenvironment affect the behaviour of MSCs and their regenerative potential [17]. Thus, the protection of local cells against potential harmful effects of some periodontal therapies appears to be a rational target for treating periodontitis.
Some commercial products based on chlorhexidine, doxycycline hyclate or minocycline gel [7], metronidazole gel [5], sodium hypochlorite [18], povidone iodine [19], silver nanospheres [20] or sulphonic acids [21,22,23] are currently being used in clinical practice as local adjunctive therapies to subgingival instrumentation mostly due to their antimicrobial effect. However, some drawbacks have been related to their use in terms of clinical performance [20] and biological effects [24,25,26,27,28,29]. Chlorhexidine showed a cytotoxic effect on human stem cells [24], alveolar bone cells [14], gingival epithelial cells [13] in a concentration—and time—dependent manner [24]. Chlorhexidine had a lower cytotoxicity compared to sodium hypochlorite [25], but induced no cellular survival at the minimal bactericidal concentration [26]. Different concentrations of sodium hypochlorite exhibited deleterious effects on stem cells of the apical papilla [27] and human bone marrow MSCs [28] in a direct relationship with higher concentrations and increased exposure time [28]. Sodium hypochlorite is included in endodontic as well as in periodontal products [29].
Povidone-iodine is an antimicrobial substance that negatively influences cell survival and proliferation of human osteoblast, fibroblast and myoblast cells [30]. Silver nanoparticles are promising antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory systems that display antitumor activity and sustained drug-carrier potential [31]. Additionally, silver nanoparticles induce a cytotoxic effect on human periodontal fibroblasts [32] and MSCs [33].
To date, the clinical relevance of the utility of adjunctive local antimicrobials in association with subgingival instrumentation in the treatment of periodontitis is still uncertain [4,20] and no consensus regarding the most effective substances or recommended concentration has been available. Some local antimicrobial products based on sulfonic/sulphuric acids, silver nanoparticles or sodium hypochlorite are available for the treatment of periodontitis, but there are few studies to support their biocompatibility with periodontal tissues. Conducting further investigations could bring positive evidence in this regard and arguments to increase their clinical utility preferentially over other products.
A dual antimicrobial desiccant product containing a blend of sulphonic/sulphuric acids has been recently proposed as adjunctive therapy to subgingival instrumentation [21,22,23]. These acids have a strong affinity to bind to the water retained by the biofilm matrix and they have been demonstrated to cause molecular denaturation and tissue coagulation of the outermost layer of periodontal tissue. The irreversible rapid desiccation mechanism would allow a quick detachment of the subgingival calculus and a destruction of the biofilm [12]. However, desiccant products have not been well studied and their mechanism of action is not completely understood [20]. Information on the cytotoxicity of sulphonic/sulphuric acids-based local products on oral cells is very limited. Moreover, some toxicological aspects associated with the use of silver nanoparticle-based systems should further be elucidated [31] and there are very few data on their effect on oral cells. Additionally, information on the impact of the above-mentioned products on root surfaces is scarce.
The present study addresses the underlying inconsistencies in the scientific literature related to the microscopical impact of local adjunctive antimicrobials associated with subgingival instrumentation. It, therefore, aims to investigate the effect exerted by some less studied commercial products based on sulphonic/sulphuric acids, sodium hypochlorite and silver nanoparticles, respectively, on the proliferation and viability of MSCs isolated from gingival tissues (gMSCs). For the purpose of this study, the following null hypothesis was tested: the biocompatibility of the tested commercial products did not differ with different product concentrations. The study also used SEM analysis to evaluate the influence of the root surface modifications induced by these products on root surfaces and gMSC adhesion.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The protocol used in this study was approved by the Ethical Board of the Iuliu Haţieganu University (No. 472/19 December 2018). Prior to tissue sample and tooth collection, all patients were informed of the study protocol and of all procedural details of our research, and they were asked to give signed informed consent. The experiments included in this present study meet the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki on experimentation involving human subjects and were conducted in accordance with EU and national laws.
In order to observe the influence of antimicrobial products on gMSCs, experimental culture media were prepared by supplementing the standard culture medium with different concentrations of three commercially antimicrobial products mostly used as adjunctive materials to subgingival instrumentation in periodontitis treatment. The proliferation capacity of gMSCs was tested using the Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK8) method, after 48 h and 5 days of culture in experimental growth media. Moreover, after 24 h of gMSC culture in experimental media, MTT assay was performed to evaluate cell survival as an expression of cytotoxicity induced by the experimental substances. For the control group, gMSCs cultivated in standard culture medium were used.
In a second phase, the study employed SEM observation to evaluate the modifications of dental root surfaces induced by mechanical subgingival instrumentation associated with each of the commercial products. SEM evaluation also observed the adhesion of gMSCs on the treated surfaces.
All experiments were performed in triplicate.

2.2. Gingival Mesenchymal Stromal Cell (gMSC) Isolation and Characterization

The gMSCs were obtained from a 34-year-old healthy female smoker, from normal gingival tissues resulted during a mucogingival plastic surgery. gMSC were already fully characterized (results elsewhere—Stanomir et al., unpublished data) following the achievement of the standard minimal criteria suggested by the International Society for Cellular Therapy [34]: specific surface antigen make-up and trilineage differentiation potential. For the present study, cells after four passages were used.

2.3. Preparation of Experimental Culture Media

Three commercially antimicrobial products already in use for periodontal subgingival instrumentation were tested: HybenX (Epien Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA) (HI), Perisolv (RLS Global, Gothenburg, Sweden) (PS), Perioflush (Dental Life Sciences, Wigan, UK) (PF) (Table 1).
The experimental solutions were prepared in five different concentrations (50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 2%) for each commercial product, by diluting them with the corresponding volume of sterile phosphate saline (PBS) (Lonza, Basel, Switzerland). To evaluate the direct effect of the antimicrobial products on gMSCs, each concentration of the experimental solutions was supplemented in standard culture medium (Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium/Nutrient F-12 Ham/DMEM/F12—Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA, plus 10% FCS—EuroClone, Pero, MI, Italy, plus 1% antibiotic/antimycotic—Sigma-Aldrich) at a ratio of 1:10.

2.4. Cell Proliferation (CCK-8)

A Cell Counting Kit-8 (Sigma Aldrich) was used for this assay, after 48 h and 5 days of growing gMSCs in experimental media. To evaluate the proliferation of gMSCs, 500 μL of cell suspension (3 × 104 cells) was cultivated in three 24-well plates (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) with 50 μL of each concentration of the experimental solutions (HI, PS, PF at 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 2%). After 48 h and 5 days, a total volume of 50 μL of the CCK-8 solution was added to each well. The plate was then incubated for 4 h. Before evaluation, the cells were rinsed with PBS (Lonza). The optical densities of each well were read at 450 nm with a Synergy 2 microplate reader (BioTek, Winooski, VT, USA).

2.5. Cell Survival by MTT Assay

Cells were allowed to adhere for 24 h to 96-well plates (1 × 104 cells) in standard culture medium. The cell media was then replaced with 200 μL fresh media supplemented with 20 μL of various dilutions of each commercial product (HybenX, Perisolv, Perioflush at 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 2%). Standard medium served as a control. Following exposure to the solutions for 24 h, 10 μL of 5 mg/mL MTT solution (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide—Sigma–Aldrich) in PBS (Lonza) were added in each well. MTT is a tetrazolium salt that is converted by cell mitochondrial reductases of viable cells into a dark blue compound-formazan. After incubation for 4 h at 37 °C in dark, the MTT solution was removed from each well and 100 μL DMSO dye (dimethylsulfoxide) (Fluka, Buchs, Switzerland) was added. Before evaluation, the cells were rinsed with PBS (Lonza). The optical density of the colour reaction at 450 nm was determined with a Synergy 2 microplate reader (BioTek).

2.6. Cell Culture on Treated Root Samples

Eight human inferior molars were used for the present experiment. Tooth collection was performed following relevant guidelines and regulations. Teeth were extracted for orthodontic or periodontal reasons, which were not related to the present study. The extracted teeth were stored in 4% chloramine-T after the removal of soft tissue debris and they were used within one month after extraction. SRP was performed for all roots with a Gracey curette no. 7/8 (Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL, USA) by applying five long movements in a cervical-apical direction on each root area (Figure 1a). One operator (IL) previously trained performed all instrumentations. The teeth were rinsed in saline solution. The crowns were embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin (Duracryl® Plus, SpofaDental, Czech Republic) using a silicon mounting template (Zetaplus & Indurent gel, Zhermack, Badia Polesine, Italy) leaving the roots exposed (Figure S1a). Each root was sectioned in a buccal-oral and apical-coronal direction using a low-speed diamond saw (Isomet, Buehler Ltd., Illinois, IL, USA), resulting in two external sections of about 2 mm in thickness and one central part (Figure 1b). In order to evaluate the changes of root surface and the adhesion of gMSCs, root samples were prepared from the external root sections (Figure S1b) using diamond-coated burs (Komet 6837.314.012; Komet, Lemgo, Germany) mounted on a high-speed hand-piece with air and water cooling. A total of 24 root samples (Figure S1c) of 4 × 3 × 2 mm each (Figure 1c) were prepared from the cervical thirds of the root sections, 1 mm apically to the cement-enamel junction [38]. All samples were sterilized using ethylene oxide gas for 2 h at 56 °C followed by degassing for 12 h. Just before placement in culture media, samples were treated with commercial products according to manufacturer’s instructions (30 s for HI and PS and 2 min for PF) and then thoroughly rinsed with PBS solution (Lonza).
Three samples were treated with each commercial product and three other samples that had not been chemically treated were used as controls. The 12 root samples were placed in a culture medium without cells in order to observe surface microscopical changes induced by the treatment. Other 12 identically treated samples were placed in 24-well Petri dishes to observe gMSC adhesion through SEM. Then, 103 cells obtained from culture at 80% confluence (Figure 1d) were plated on top of these samples. One day after seeding, the root samples were fixed in 2% glutaraldehyde in a 0.1 M PBS (Lonza) (pH = 7.4) overnight at 4 °C for SEM analysis.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the MedCalc® Statistical Software version 19.7.1 (MedCalc Software Ltd., Ostend, Belgium; https://www.medcalc.org, accessed on 28 February 2021). Data were expressed as mean and standard deviation (±SD) (normal distribution). Comparison between groups was performed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Differences between measurements, taking into consideration different groups, were verified using two-way repeated measures ANOVA. A p value lower than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. CCK Analysis

The cells were grown in experimental culture media containing different concentrations of commercial products and their proliferation and viability capacities were tested using the Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK8) method and MTT assay, respectively. The results are provided in Figure 2 and Figure 3 as well as in Table S1.
After 48 h, the optical density values indicating cell proliferation after exposure to various concentrations of HI were not significantly different (p = 0.226) (Figure 2a). After 5 days, the concentration of 50% HI significantly inhibited cell proliferation in comparison with 5% HI (p = 0.001), 2% HI (p = 0.003) and control medium (p = 0.001) (Figure 2d).
After 48 h of exposure to different concentrations of PS, cells grown in 50% PS proliferated less than cells grown in all the other media except for 20% PS (all values of p < 0.001). The same trend was remarked for 20% PS concentration (excepting for that related to 50% PS, all values of p < 0.001) (Figure 2b). After 5 days of PS exposure, cells proliferated significantly differently: the 50% PS containing medium significantly inhibited cells in comparison with all the other media except for 20% PS (p = 0.009, p = 0.005, p = 0.004, p = 0.002, respectively) (Figure 2e).
For PF exposure, the optical density evaluation after 48 h indicates proliferation values significantly lower for cells grown in 50% PF and 20% PF in comparison with the control medium (p = 0.002, p = 0.014, respectively) (Figure 2c). After 5 days of exposure to different concentrations of PF, significant differences in optical density values were recorded: except for the lowest concentration (2%), all the other PF concentrations induced significantly less cell proliferation in comparison with the control medium (p = 0.002, p = 0.004, p = 0.003, p = 0.024, respectively) (Figure 2f).
When the three products were compared with each other for equivalent concentrations, some significant differences of CCK values were found for both moments of measurement. Thus, inter-group comparisons for the 50% concentrations provided significant differences in proliferation values for both 48 h-CCK8 and 5 days-CCK8. For 48 h-CCK8 significant differences were found between 50% HI vs. 50% PS (p = 0.001) and 50% HI vs. 50% PF (p < 0.001) and for 5 days-CCK8 between 50% HI vs. 50% PS (p = 0.002). For the 20% concentrations, significant differences were calculated between 48 h-CCK8 values: 20% HI vs. 20% PS (p = 0. 004) and 20% HI vs. 20% PF (p = 0.006). For 48 h-CCK, when 10% concentrations were compared, significant differences were found between 10% HI vs. 10% PF (p < 0.01) and 10% PS vs. 10% PF (p < 0.01). A significant difference was also found between 10% PS vs. 10% PF for 5 days-CCK8 (p = 0.058). Additionally, significant differences were found for 2% concentrations for 48 h-CCK8 between 2% HI vs. 2% PF (p = 0.045) and 2% PS vs. 2% PF (p = 0.036) and for 5 days-CCK8 between 2% PS vs. 2% PF (p = 0.036).

3.2. MTT Analysis

At 24 h, the optical density values indicating cell viability after HI exposure showed no significant differences when the different concentrations were compared: (p = 0.390) (Figure 3a). The intragroup comparisons for PS exposure reveal that vitality values were significantly lower for cells grown in 50% PS than for cells grown in 5% or 2% PS containing media as well as in the control medium (p = 0.025. p = 0.032, p = 0.012, respectively) (Figure 3b).
For PF exposure, (Figure 3c), cells grown in 50%, 20%, and 10% PF had a decreased viability compared to the cells grown in the control medium (p = 0.003, p = 0.015, p = 0.013, respectively).
When MTT values of equivalent concentrations of the three products were compared, no significant differences were observed for any of the five concentrations (p = 0.065, p = 0.067, p = 0.172, p = 0.256, p = 0.060).

3.3. SEM Observations

SEM observations evaluated the modifications of the root samples after mechanical instrumentation plus commercial product applications and the adhesion of gMSCs on the treated samples. Mechanically instrumented samples are generally covered by a continuous smear layer rendering an overall smooth appearance (Figure 4a). HI-treated and instrumented samples show areas of continuous smooth compact smear layer alternating with areas of partially opened dentin tubuli (Figure 4c,d). More randomly open tubuli are distributed on PS-treated and instrumented surfaces (Figure 4e). PF-treated and instrumented samples display an abundant deposit that renders a rough appearance of the surfaces (Figure 4g,h). Many samples are furrowed by cracks—a normal consequence of the methodology dehydration process (Figure 4a).
On cell-treated samples, rare cells colonize the root surfaces. Although extremely elongated in 70–80% confluence on culture media, cells acquired a rounder form when cultured on root fragments treated with PS and PF plus mechanical instrumentation (Figure 4f,h). gMSCs cultured on HI-treated and instrumented samples display a more elongated shape (Figure 4d). Cells were well attached through lamellipodia and filopodia (Figure 4b,d,f,h).

4. Discussion

The present study examined the influence of three commercial antimicrobial products used as local adjunctive of mechanical subgingival instrumentation on the proliferation and survival of MSCs isolated from human gingiva through CCK8 test and MTT assay, respectively. Additionally, the study appreciated the morphological changes of root surfaces following mechanical instrumentation and antimicrobial applications in relation to gMSC adhesion. Cell adhesion and proliferation are important steps in periodontal healing after various therapies [38]. The nature of root surfaces provided by mechanical subgingival instrumentation and local antimicrobial applications used in periodontitis treatment could influence local reparatory phenomena [39]. These phenomena could also be impacted by the interactions of periodontal progenitor pools with locally delivered materials.
This study observed an inversely proportional trend between the concentrations of antimicrobial products in the culture media and the proliferation and viability of gMSCs. HI seemed relatively better tolerated than the other products, since only 50% HI provided a significant inhibitory proliferative effect after five days (CCK8 test) in comparison with controls. For PS both 50% and 20% concentrations induced a certain cytotoxicity in comparison with lower concentrations or controls, as revealed by MTT and CCK8 assays and five days-CCK8 assays, respectively. The PF in concentrations of 50%, 20% and 10% witnessed a significant cytotoxicity in terms of cell viability (MTT assay) and 5 days-proliferation (CCK8 test).
The present results reject the null hypothesis because there were significant differences in the toxicity of the products on gMSC, when corresponding concentrations were compared. However, the results should be regarded with caution due to the reduced sample size, which is considered to be a limitation of this study. Further investigations on an extended number of samples should be conducted.
To our knowledge, this present study is the first to provide data on HI toxic effects on gMSCs. Apart from the positive results furnished by standard cytotoxicity tests [36], it appears that no other published information concerning HI direct influence on oral cells is available. However, it was observed that when used for direct pulp capping in dogs, this product was more favourable to cell vitality and new dentin formation than conventional calcium hydroxide products [40]. HI is a novel hygroscopic solution [10] initially used as an adjunctive rinse of tooth root canal systems to enhance the removal of post-instrumentation smear-layer and also as an adjunct to subgingival instrumentation in periodontitis [22] or in peri-implantitis treatment [11] due to its proven effectiveness against bacterial dental biofilms [10,41,42,43]. Unlike other commercial products, HI is an “active” cleanser that detaches and effectively removes infectious materials and biofilm from the periodontal pockets. HI simply desiccates certain kinds of oral tissue surfaces to the point of denaturation, but it does not have sufficient desiccation intensity to cause destructive reactions nor does acidify tissue [36]. Associated pre- and post-subgingival instrumentation with HI irrigations reduce the amount of mechanical scaling of subgingival root surfaces that needs to be delivered in order to obtain good clinical outcome [36]. Regarded from a COVID-pandemic perspective, HI reduces the subgingival instrumentation-working time and the eventual SARS-CoV-2 load in the airborne particles induced through subgingival instrumentation [44]. The above-mentioned properties, in addition to the reduced cytotoxicity of HI in comparison with PS and PF, recommend it as a useful adjunctive tool in subgingival instrumentation approaches.
The reports on sodium hypochlorite cytotoxicity seem somehow contradictory. Sodium hypochlorite—the active substance in the PS—exerts a negative impact on non-human MSCs [27,28] or on periodontal ligament fibroblasts [45]. Additionally, SEM analyses reported an inhibitory effect of 0.5 mg/mL sodium hypochlorite on cell adhesion [28]. Other studies have found that there is no influence on cell survival and spread on PS treated-dentin discs when PS is thoroughly rinsed [46]. No data is available on its influence on gMSCs.
As our study observed, several studies also reported a round or thread-like shape of cells after contact with PS, associated with features of cell suffering [28]. PS acts by disrupting bacterial biofilms as wells as by dissolving degenerated tissues through the chemical reaction of sodium hypochlorite with the contained amino-acids to form N-monochloroamino acids, which minimize the detrimental effects of the hypochlorite on healthy tissues [47].
Although there are no direct reports on the effect of PF on oral MSCs, some studies show that silver nanoparticles of 15–20 nm at concentrations of 10 to 1,000 μM result in a time- and concentration-dependent cytotoxic effect on human periodontal ligament cells [32]. In contrast, other studies report that treatment with up to 100 μM silver nanoparticles do not impact human periodontal ligament fibroblast viability [48]. Some potential biohazards related to the toxicity of silver nanoparticles consequent to oral exposure from mouthwash, accidental ingestion and professional exposure to aerosols have been mentioned [31].
The three products underwent additional cytotoxicity tests to the standard ones because responses to dental materials differ among cell types [49]. Thus, due to local products’ proximity with gingival tissues, it seemed important to study their biocompatibility on gingival-derived cells [50]. Moreover, because the periodontal progenitor cellular pool plays an important role in local healing after subgingival application of local antimicrobials, the present study evaluated the influence of commercial products on gMSCs.
Diluting phenomena of the adjunctive subgingivally used products in the periodontal pockets could hardly be previewed. The lack of cytotoxicity appreciation from this perspective could be considered a limitation of our study. The continuous secretion of the gingival crevicular fluid eliminates the antimicrobials from the subgingival areas [51], which renders living tissues less susceptible to the toxic effects of drugs than cultured cells [45]. The deleterious effect of the commercial products, and mostly of PF on gMSCs, warrants caution when used in clinical practice. Nonetheless, our results may not correspond to the in vivo reality and thus the information provided by our study should be considered judiciously.
As previously described and consistent with prior analyses [39,52], our study observed that after mechanical instrumentation with Gracey curettes, the samples were coated with a smear layer, rendering smooth homogenous surfaces. Generally, curette instrumentation is known to form a thin smear layer [52]. Notwithstanding, other reports show that hand curettes produced remarkable surface alterations modifying the root morphology and roughness [53] and exhibiting a thick smear layer. However, the root surface roughness does not impede the success of mechanical subgingival instrumentation [54], although it would significantly increase soft and hard deposit accumulations. Therefore, the exact role of root surface roughness is still not completely agreed [55].
We observed that samples treated with HI show areas of continuous smooth compact smear layer alternating with areas of partially opened dentin tubuli. Other SEM examinations reported that HI efficiently removed the smear layer in the root canal system [56], but no information on its effect on root surfaces after subgingival treatment is available. PS-treated samples demonstrated relative smooth surfaces at low and high magnifications, which is in agreement with other reports [46]. However, partially opened dentin tubuli were also present. Samples treated with PF were rough and displayed abundant deposits. It seems that both HI and PS only partially removed the smear layer, while PF was even less efficient in removing instrumentation debris. It is possible that the smear layer could partially be dislocated by PF but not removed by rinsing. Smear layer persistence could induce clinical problems related to connective tissue re-attachment stability.
The use of root fragments to observe the effect of adjunctive antimicrobial products and mechanical instrumentation on the attachment of MSCs closely recreated a daily-practice model and is considered to be a strong point of the present study, that – unlike other reports—did not use enamel bovine fragments [46] or human dentin [57]. However, the majority of our samples displayed partially opened dentin tubuli, which signifies that the cementum elimination was performed by mechanical treatment although a minimal curette instrumentation of the roots was done.
Additional in vitro testing is required to further characterize the influence of adjuvant antimicrobial products on different types of periodontal cells and to observe the experimental variables that may increase cell adhesions on roots.

5. Conclusions

The three commercial products used as subgingival adjunctive antimicrobials to mechanical instrumentation induced a dose-dependent cytotoxicity in terms of reduced proliferation and viability of gMSCs, as well as modifications of cell shapes on SEM images.
The blend of sulphonic/sulphuric acids seems to have been better tolerated than sodium hypochlorite and the silver nanoparticle-based product, but these results are difficult to translate in clinical practice.
Repopulation of root surfaces was possible following SRP associated with antimicrobial product applications, although a scarce distribution of gMSCs was observed. HY and PS provide more stable root surfaces due to a more efficient removal of the smear layer. However, possible side effects of these antimicrobials, such as the opening of dentin tubuli and consecutive dentin hypersensitivity, should be considered from a clinical point of view.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ma14175049/s1, Figure S1: Steps in root sectioning. Silicon mounting template containing resin-embedded teeth (a). Fragments of longitudinally sectioned roots (b); Root samples (c). Table S1: CCK8 and MTT test values.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.L., A.R. and A.S.; methodology, A.R., A.S., L.B.T. and E.P.; formal analysis, A.E.B., I.C.M.; investigation, I.L., E.P., A.R., A.S. and L.B.T.; resources, A.G.D.; data curation, A.C., A.M. and I.C.M.; writing—original draft preparation, I.L., A.R., E.P. and L.B.T.; writing—review and editing, A.S., A.E.B., A.G.D., A.M. and A.C.; visualization, E.P.; supervision, A.E.B. and A.G.D.; project administration, A.R.; funding acquisition, I.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca, PCD grant number 3066/31/1 February 2018.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethical Board of the Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca (No. 96/9 March 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent to use gingival tissues and teeth for research purposes was obtained from the subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Stefan Vesa for the statistical analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Savage, A.; Eaton, K.A.; Moles, D.R.; Needleman, I. A systematic review of definitions of periodontitis and methods that have been used to identify this disease. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2009, 36, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Peres, M.A.; Macpherson, L.M.D.; Weyant, R.J.; Daly, B.; Venturelli, R.; Mathur, M.R.; Listl, S.; Celeste, R.K.; Guarnizo-Herreño, C.C.; Kearns, C.; et al. Oral diseases: A global public health challenge. Lancet 2019, 394, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Graziani, F.; Karapetsa, D.; Alonso, B.; Herrera, D. Nonsurgical and surgical treatment of periodontitis: How many options for one disease? Periodontol. 2000 2017, 75, 152–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sanz, M.; Herrera, D.; Kebschull, M.; Chapple, I.; Jepsen, S.; Beglundh, T.; Sculean, A.; Tonetti, M.S.; Merete Aass, A.; Aimetti, M.; et al. Treatment of stage I–III periodontitis—The EFP S3 level clinical practice guideline. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2020, 47, 4–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gomes, E.W.B.; Casarin, M.; Martins, T.M.; da Silva, A.F. Local delivery therapies as adjuvants to non-surgical periodontal treatment of periodontitis grade C: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2000, 24, 4213–4224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hallmon, W.W.; Rees, T.D. Local anti-infective therapy: Mechanical and physical approaches. A systematic review. Ann. Periodontol. 2003, 8, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Smiley, C.J.; Tracy, S.L.; Abt, E.; Michalowicz, B.S.; John, M.T.; Gunsolley, J.; Cobb, C.M.; Rossmann, J.; Harrel, S.K.; Forrest, J.L.; et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis on the nonsurgical treatment of chronic periodontitis by means of scaling and root planing with or without adjuncts. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2015, 146, 508–524.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Suvan, J.; Leira, Y.; Moreno Sancho, F.M.; Graziani, F.; Derks, J.; Tomasi, C. Subgingival instrumentation for treatment of periodontitis. A systematic review. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2020, 47, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Nagarakanti, S.; Gunupati, S.; Chava, V.K.; Ramesh Reddy, B.V. Effectiveness of subgingival irrigation as an adjunct to scaling and root planing in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A systematic review. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2015, 9, ZE06–ZE09. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Antonelli, A.; Giovannini, L.; Baccani, I.; Giuliani, V.; Pace, R.; Rossolini, G.M. In vitro antimicrobial activity of the decontaminant hybenx® compared to chlorhexidine and sodium hypochlorite against common bacterial and yeast pathogens. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Pini-Prato, G.; Magnani, C.; Rotundo, R. Treatment of Acute Periodontal Abscesses Using the Biofilm Decontamination Approach: A Case Report Study. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2016, 36, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Porter, S.; Al-Johani, K.; Fedele, S.; Moles, D. Randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of HybenX in the symptomatic treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis. Oral Dis. 2009, 15, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Babich, H.; Tipton, D.A. In vitro response of human gingival epithelioid S-G cells to minocycline. Toxicol. In Vitro 2002, 16, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cabral, C.T.; Fernandes, M.H. In vitro comparison of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine on the long-term proliferation and functional activity of human alveolar bone cells. Clin. Oral Investig. 2007, 11, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pittenger, M.F.; Discher, D.E.; Péault, B.M.; Phinney, D.G.; Hare, J.M.; Caplan, A.I. Mesenchymal stem cell perspective: Cell biology to clinical progress. NPJ Regen. Med. 2019, 4, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Sculean, A.; Nikolidakis, D.; Nikou, G.; Ivanovic, A.; Chapple, I.L.C.; Stavropoulos, A. Biomaterials for promoting periodontal regeneration in human intrabony defects: A systematic review. Periodontol. 2000 2015, 68, 182–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, J.; Li, Z.G.; Si, Y.M.; Chen, B.; Meng, J. The difference on the osteogenic differentiation between periodontal ligament stem cells and bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells under inflammatory microenviroments. Differentiation 2014, 88, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ramanauskaite, E.; Machiulskiene, V.; Eliezer, M.; Sculean, A. Sodium Hypochlorite as an Adjunct to Nonsurgical Treatment of Periodontitis: A Systematic Review. Oral Health Prev. Dent. 2020, 18, 881–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Sahrmann, P.; Imfeld, T.; Ronay, V.; Attin, T.; Schmidlin, P.R. Povidone-iodine gel and solution as adjunct to ultrasonic debridement in nonsurgical periodontitis treatment: An RCT pilot study. Quintessence Int. 2014, 45, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lauritano, D.; Pazzi, D.; Iapichino, A.; Gaudio, R.M.; Di Muzio, M.; Lo Russo, L.; Pezzetti, F. Evaluation of the efficacy of a new oral gel containing carvacrol and thymol for home oral care in the management of chronic periodontitis using PCR analysis: A microbiological pilot study. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2016, 30, 129–134. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bracke, J.; Basara, M.; Savor, E.; Dunaway, A.; Watkins, M. Pilot evaluation of a simple adjunctive method for improved removal of oral biofilm during conventional scaling and root planing therapy. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2015, 29, 6–9. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  22. Isola, G.; Matarese, G.; Williams, R.C.; Siciliano, V.I.; Alibrandi, A.; Cordasco, G.; Ramaglia, L. The effects of a desiccant agent in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 791–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lombardo, G.; Signoriello, A.; Corrocher, G.; Signoretto, C.; Burlacchini, G.; Pardo, A.; Nocini, P.F. A Topical Desiccant Agent in Association with Manual Debridement in the Initial Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis: A Clinical and Microbiological Pilot Study. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Widbiller, M.; Althumairy, R.I.; Diogenes, A. Direct and Indirect Effect of Chlorhexidine on Survival of Stem Cells from the Apical Papilla and Its Neutralization. J. Endod. 2019, 45, 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Farhad Mollashahi, N.; Saberi, E.; Karkehabadi, H. Evaluation of cytotoxic effects of various endodontic irrigation solutions on the survival of stem cell of human apical papilla. Iran. Endod. J. 2016, 11, 293–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Van Meurs, S.J.; Gawlitta, D.; Heemstra, K.A.; Poolman, R.W.; Vogely, H.C.; Kruyt, M.C. Selection of an optimal antiseptic solution for intraoperative irrigation: An in vitro study. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2014, 96, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Scott, M.B.; Zilinski, G.S.; Kirkpatrick, T.C.; Himel, V.T.; Sabey, K.A.; Lallier, T.E. The Effects of Irrigants on the Survival of Human Stem Cells of the Apical Papilla, Including Endocyn. J. Endod. 2018, 44, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alkahtani, A.; Alkahtany, S.M.; Anil, S. An in vitro evaluation of the cytotoxicity of varying concentrations of sodium hypochlorite on human mesenchymal stem cells. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2014, 15, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Regedent, A.G. PERISOLV®. Available online: http://www.regedent.com/en/professionals/products/perisolv/ (accessed on 15 March 2021).
  30. Liu, J.X.; Werner, J.A.; Buza, J.A., III; Kirsch, T.; Zuckerman, J.D.; Virk, M.S. Povidone-iodine solutions inhibit cell migration and survival of osteoblasts, fibroblasts, and myoblasts. Spine 2017, 42, 1757–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Noronha, V.T.; Paula, A.J.; Durán, G.; Galembeck, A.; Cogo-Müller, K.; Franz-Montan, M.; Durán, N. Silver nanoparticles in dentistry. Dent. Mater. 2017, 33, 1110–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hernández-Sierra, J.F.; Galicia-Cruz, O.; Angélica, S.A.; Ruiz, F.; Pierdant-Pérez, M.; Pozos-Guillén, A.J. In vitro cytotoxicity of silver nanoparticles as a hydroxyapatite modifier on human fibroblasts. Front. Bioeng. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2011, 36, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chan, E.L.; Zhang, C.; Cheung, G.S.P. Cytotoxicity of a novel nano-silver particle endodontic irrigant. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dent. 2015, 7, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Dominici, M.; Le Blanc, K.; Mueller, I.; Slaper-Cortenbach, I.; Marini, F.C.; Krause, D.S.; Deans, R.J.; Keating, A.; Prockop, D.J.; Horwitz, E.M. Minimal criteria for defining multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells. The International Society for Cellular Therapy position statement. Cytotherapy 2006, 8, 315–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. HYBENX—Oral Tissue Decontaminant. Available online: http://hybenx.it/ (accessed on 15 March 2021).
  36. Lombardo, G.; Signoretto, C.; Corrocher, G.; Pardo, A.; Pighi, J.; Rovera, A.; Caccuri, F.; Nocini, P.F. A Topical Desiccant Agent in Association with Ultrasonic Debridement in the Initial Treatment of Chronic Periodontitis: A Clinical and Microbiological Study. New Microbiol. 2015, 38, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Dental Life Sciences. Perioflush. Available online: https://www.dentallifesciences.com/products/perioflush/ (accessed on 15 March 2021).
  38. Feist, I.S.; De Micheli, G.; Carneiro, S.R.S.; Eduardo, C.P.; Miyagi, S.P.H.; Marques, M.M. Adhesion and Growth of Cultured Human Gingival Fibroblasts on Periodontally Involved Root Surfaces Treated by Er:YAG Laser. J. Periodontol. 2003, 74, 1368–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Blomlöf, J.; Kansson, L.; Blomlöf, L.; Lindskog, S. Root surface etching at neutral pH promotes periodontal healing. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1996, 23, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Rohrer, M.D.; Prasad, H.S.; Savord, E.G. A histologic assessment of a Hybenix ® oral tissue decontaminant in vital pulp therapy in dogs. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents 2016, 30, 189–197. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lopez, M.A.; Passarelli, P.C.; Godino, E.; Lombardo, N.; Altamura, F.R.; Speranza, A.; Lopez, A.; Papi, P.; Pompa, G.; D’Addona, A. The treatment of peri-implant diseases: A new approach using HYBENX® as a decontaminant for implant surface and oral tissues. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pace, R.; Morecchiato, F.; Giovannini, L.; Di Nasso, L.; Giuliani, V.; Franceschi, D.; Pagavino, G.; Rossolini, G.M.; Antonelli, A. In vitro alteration by dentine and protein of the antimicrobial activity of two endodontic irrigants: HybenX® and sodium hypochlorite. Antibiotics 2020, 9, 792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ye, W.H.; Fan, B.; Purcell, W.; Meghil, M.M.; Cutler, C.W.; Bergeron, B.E.; Ma, J.Z.; Tay, F.R.; Niu, L.N. Anti-biofilm efficacy of root canal irrigants against in-situ Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in root canals, isthmuses and dentinal tubules. J. Dent. 2018, 79, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Veena, H.R.; Mahantesha, S.; Joseph, P.A.; Patil, S.R.; Patil, S.H. Dissemination of aerosol and splatter during ultrasonic scaling: A pilot study. J. Infect. Public Health 2015, 8, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bajrami, D.; Hoxha, V.; Gorduysus, O.; Muftuoglu, S.; Zeybek, N.D.; Küçükkaya, S. Cytotoxic effect of endodontic irrigants in vitro. Med. Sci. Monit. Basic Res. 2014, 20, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Schmidlin, P.R.; Fujioka-Kobayashi, M.; Mueller, H.D.; Sculean, A.; Lussi, A.; Miron, R.J. Effects of air polishing and an amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution to dentin surfaces and periodontal ligament cell survival, attachment, and spreading. Clin. Oral Investig. 2017, 21, 1589–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Beeley, J.A.; Yip, H.K.; Stevenson, A.G. Chemo-mechanical caries removal: A review of the techniques and latest developments. Ned. Tijdschr. Tandheelkd 2001, 108, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Xu, Y.; Zheng, B.; He, J.; Cui, Z.; Liu, Y. Silver nanoparticles promote osteogenic differentiation of human periodontal ligament fibroblasts by regulating the RhoA–TAZ axis. Cell Biol. Int. 2019, 43, 910–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Illeperuma, R.P.; Park, Y.J.; Kim, J.M.; Bae, J.Y.; Che, Z.M.; Son, H.K.; Han, M.R.; Kim, K.M.; Kim, J. Immortalized gingival fibroblasts as a cytotoxicity test model for dental materials. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2012, 23, 753–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Flury, S.; Hayoz, S.; Peutzfeldt, A.; Hüsler, J.; Lussi, A. Depth of cure of resin composites: Is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials? Dent. Mater. 2012, 28, 521–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Subbarao, K.C.; Nattuthurai, G.S.; Sundararajan, S.K.; Sujith, I.; Joseph, J.; Syedshah, Y.P. Gingival Crevicular Fluid: An Overview Title. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2019, 11, S135–S139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mengel, R.; Stelzel, M.; Mengel, C.; Flores-de-Jacoby, L.; Diekwisch, T. An in vitro study of various instruments for root planing. Int. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 1997, 17, 592–599. [Google Scholar]
  53. Maritato, M.; Orazi, L.; Laurito, D.; Formisano, G.; Serra, E.; Lollobrigida, M.; Molinari, A.; De Biase, A. Root surface alterations following manual and mechanical scaling: A comparative study. Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2018, 16, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Oberholzer, R.; Rateitschak, K.H. Root cleaning or root smoothing. An in vivo study. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1996, 23, 326–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ko, M.J.; Cho, C.M.; Jeong, S.N. Characteristics of the molar surface after removal of cervical enamel projections: Comparison of three different rotating instruments. J. Periodontal Implant Sci. 2016, 46, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Ballal, V.; Khandelwal, D.; Yegneswaran, P.P.; Varghese, J.; Al-Haj Husain, N.; Özcan, M. Evaluation of Smear Layer Removal and Antimicrobial Efficacy of HybenX Against Enterococcus Faecalis Biofilm. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 2021, 29, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Damante, C.A.; Ducati, P.; Ferreira, R.; Salmeron, S.; Zangrando, M.S.R.; de Rezende, M.L.R.; Sant’Ana, A.C.P.; Greghi, S.L.A.; Magalhães, A.C. In vitro evaluation of adhesion/proliferation of human gingival fibroblasts on demineralized root surfaces by toluidine blue O in antimicrobial photodynamic therapy. Photodiagn. Photodyn. Ther. 2016, 13, 303–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Materials 14 05049 g001 550
Figure 1. Sample preparation for SEM analysis. (a) Root scaling; (b) longitudinally sectioned roots; (c) HI on a standard root sample; (d) MSCs prepared to be harvested at 80% confluence.
Figure 1. Sample preparation for SEM analysis. (a) Root scaling; (b) longitudinally sectioned roots; (c) HI on a standard root sample; (d) MSCs prepared to be harvested at 80% confluence.
Materials 14 05049 g001
Materials 14 05049 g002 550
Figure 2. Proliferation after 48 h and 5 days of culture in different media. The whiskers correspond to the standard deviation. Results after 48 h for experimental media containing: (a) HI; (b) PS; (c) PF; results after 5 days for experimental media containing (d) HI; (e) PS; (f) PF; HI = HybenX; PS = Perisolv; PF = Perioflush; CTRL = Control. * = statistically different vs. controls.
Figure 2. Proliferation after 48 h and 5 days of culture in different media. The whiskers correspond to the standard deviation. Results after 48 h for experimental media containing: (a) HI; (b) PS; (c) PF; results after 5 days for experimental media containing (d) HI; (e) PS; (f) PF; HI = HybenX; PS = Perisolv; PF = Perioflush; CTRL = Control. * = statistically different vs. controls.
Materials 14 05049 g002
Materials 14 05049 g003 550
Figure 3. Graphical representation of MTT test. The whiskers correspond to the standard deviation. Results for experimental media containing: (a) HI; (b) PS; (c) PF; HI = HybenX; PS = Perisolv; PF = Perioflush; CTRL = Control. * = statistically different vs. controls.
Figure 3. Graphical representation of MTT test. The whiskers correspond to the standard deviation. Results for experimental media containing: (a) HI; (b) PS; (c) PF; HI = HybenX; PS = Perisolv; PF = Perioflush; CTRL = Control. * = statistically different vs. controls.
Materials 14 05049 g003
Materials 14 05049 g004 550
Figure 4. SEM observed samples. (a) Continuous smear layer on a instrumented root sample (100×); (b) elongate cell, well-attached through pseudopods on a rough smear-layer covered sample after subgingival instrumentation (3000×); (c) transversally sectioned dentin tubuli partly obstructed by a continuous smooth smear layer (upper part) on a HI-treated and instrumented sample (500×); (d) fusiform well-attached cell through long lamellipodia and dentin tubuli of 3-4 µm on a HI-treated and instrumented sample (2200×); (e) relative smooth smear layer surface partially obstructing dentin tubuli of a PS-treated and instrumented sample (2000×); (f) attached cell through filopodia on a relatively smooth PS-treated and instrumented sample (4000×); (g) rough surface due to important deposits of a PF-treated and instrumented sample (500×); (h) beautiful flattened adherent cell through short lamellipodia on a very rough PF-treated and instrumented sample (2500×). HI = HybenX; PS = Perisolv; PF = Perioflush. Black arrowhead = rough smear-layer; white arrowhead = very rough smear layer; black arrow = partly obstructed dentin tubuli; white arrow = open dentin tubuli.
Figure 4. SEM observed samples. (a) Continuous smear layer on a instrumented root sample (100×); (b) elongate cell, well-attached through pseudopods on a rough smear-layer covered sample after subgingival instrumentation (3000×); (c) transversally sectioned dentin tubuli partly obstructed by a continuous smooth smear layer (upper part) on a HI-treated and instrumented sample (500×); (d) fusiform well-attached cell through long lamellipodia and dentin tubuli of 3-4 µm on a HI-treated and instrumented sample (2200×); (e) relative smooth smear layer surface partially obstructing dentin tubuli of a PS-treated and instrumented sample (2000×); (f) attached cell through filopodia on a relatively smooth PS-treated and instrumented sample (4000×); (g) rough surface due to important deposits of a PF-treated and instrumented sample (500×); (h) beautiful flattened adherent cell through short lamellipodia on a very rough PF-treated and instrumented sample (2500×). HI = HybenX; PS = Perisolv; PF = Perioflush. Black arrowhead = rough smear-layer; white arrowhead = very rough smear layer; black arrow = partly obstructed dentin tubuli; white arrow = open dentin tubuli.
Materials 14 05049 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the antiseptic products.
Table 1. Characteristics of the antiseptic products.
ProductManufacturerCompositionIndication
HYBENX® [35,36]
(HI)		Epien Medical, St Paul, MN, USAHygroscopic solution
Sulfonated phenolics (60%)
Sulfuric acid (28%)
Water (12%)		Oral Tissue Decontaminant Removal of plaque biofilm
Topical irrigation during scaling and root planing
Topical rinse/solution for oral cavity
Adjunctive rinse of tooth root canal systems in endodontic treatments
Perisolv® [29]
(PS)		Regedent AG, Zurich, SwitzerlandGel:
Amino acids (glutamic acid, leucine, lysine)
Sodium chloride,
Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose
Ultrapure water
Liquid:
Sodium hypochlorite solution 0.95%		Adjunctive therapy to scaling and root planing in periodontitis and peri-implantitis due to inhibitory bacterial effects and biofilm elimination
Perioflush® [37]
(PF)		Dental Life Sciences LTD, Wigan, UKWater based solution:
Ultrapurified water
Silver nanocolloid solution
Sodium nitrate
Apple, mint flavours
Lactic acid
Phosphoric acid		Rinsing and cleaning the gums and oral mucosa
Rinsing around bridge spans, erupting teeth, around implant areas, overhanging fillings, interdental spaces, after scaling
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lupșe, I.; Pall, E.; Barbu Tudoran, L.; Bulboacă, A.E.; Ciurea, A.; Micu, I.C.; Roman, A.; Delean, A.G.; Muntean, A.; Soancă, A. Cytotoxic Effects on Gingival Mesenchymal Stromal Cells and Root Surface Modifications Induced by Some Local Antimicrobial Products Used in Periodontitis Treatment. Materials 2021, 14, 5049. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175049

AMA Style

Lupșe I, Pall E, Barbu Tudoran L, Bulboacă AE, Ciurea A, Micu IC, Roman A, Delean AG, Muntean A, Soancă A. Cytotoxic Effects on Gingival Mesenchymal Stromal Cells and Root Surface Modifications Induced by Some Local Antimicrobial Products Used in Periodontitis Treatment. Materials. 2021; 14(17):5049. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175049

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lupșe, Irina, Emoke Pall, Lucian Barbu Tudoran, Adriana Elena Bulboacă, Andreea Ciurea, Iulia Cristina Micu, Alexandra Roman, Ada Gabriela Delean, Alexandrina Muntean, and Andrada Soancă. 2021. "Cytotoxic Effects on Gingival Mesenchymal Stromal Cells and Root Surface Modifications Induced by Some Local Antimicrobial Products Used in Periodontitis Treatment" Materials 14, no. 17: 5049. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175049

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop