Evaluation of changes in adhesive strength and cytotoxicity of a denture adhesive according to time

Ha-Yoon Jung; Jee-Hwan Kim; Keun-Woo Lee; June-Sung Shim; Hong-Seok Moon

doi:10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.232

Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.47(2) > 1034582

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jung, Kim, Lee, Shim, and Moon: Evaluation of changes in adhesive strength and cytotoxicity of a denture adhesive according to time

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2009;47(2):232-239.

Published online: 18 December 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2009.47.2.232

Evaluation of changes in adhesive strength and cytotoxicity of a denture adhesive according to time

Ha-Yoon Jung, DDS, MSD¹, Jee-Hwan Kim, DDS, MSD², Keun-Woo Lee, MSD, DDS, PhD³, June-Sung Shim, MSD, DDS, PhD⁴, Hong-Seok Moon, DDS, MSD, PhD^4,^∗

^¹Graduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University

^²Clinical research assistant professor, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University

^³Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University

^⁴Associate professor, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University

Corresponding Author: Hong-Seok Moon Yonsei university Dental hospital, Dept. of Prosthodontics, 134 Sinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-749, Korea +82 2 2228 3160: e-mail, hsm5@yuhs.ac

Received 30 March 20091 April 2009 Accepted 13 April 2009

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Statements of the problem

Many denture wearers occasionally use denture adhesives to improve denture retention, stability and chewing efficiency. An ideal denture adhesive is nontoxic, non-irritating, and provides comfort to the oral mucosa.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxicity and adhesive properties of a selected denture adhesive.

Material and methods

To test cytotoxicity of the selected denture adhesive, mouse fibroblast cells were used in MTT testing. Cytotoxicity was examined according to the concentration of the denture adhesive and incubated for 1 to 4 days. To examine adhesive property, a denture base was fabricated on an edentulous dentiform. The adhesive was applied to the denture base, then tensile bond strength was measured, to evaluate the change in retention during 3 days.

Results andConclusion

1. 1% and 2% concentration denture adhesive cream had no cytotoxicity. 2. The tensile bond strength of the group with both denture adhesive and artificial saliva was significantly higher than that of the group with only denture adhesive (P < .05). The tensile bond strength of the group with denture adhesive was significantly higher than that of with only artificial saliva (P < .05). 3. The tensile bond strength had no significant change during 1 hour, and then gradually decreased. After 1 day, it decrease to half. Within the limitation of this study, the tested denture adhesive had no cytotoxicilty and was effective in improving denture retention. The adhesive strength began to continuously decrease after 1 hour and it decreased to half at 1 day after application.

Keywords: denture adhesive, tensile bond strength, cytotoxicity, MTT test

REFERENCES

1.Chew CL., Boone ME., Swartz ML., Phillips RW. Denture adhesives: their effects on denture retention and stability. J Dent. 1985. 13:152–9.

2.Grasso JE. Denture adhesives. Dent Clin North Am. 2004. 48:721–33. vii.

3.Grasso JE. Denture adhesives: changing attitudes. J Am Dent Assoc. 1996. 127:90–6.

4.Norman RD., Stewart GP., Maroso DJ., Gephart JS., Kohut BE. In vitro measurement of vertical denture displacement by denture adhesives. Dent Mater. 1987. 3:342–6.

5.Adisman IK. The use of denture adhesives as an aid to denture treatment. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 62:711–5.

6.DeVengencie J., Ng MC., Ford P., Iacopino AM. In vitro evaluation of denture adhesives: possible efficacy of complex carbohydrates. Int J Prosthodont. 1997. 10:61–72.

7.Chew CL. Retention of denture adhesives—an in vitro study. J Oral Rehabil. 1990. 17:425–34.

8.Fl � ystrand F., Koppang R., Williams VD., Orstavik J. A method for testing denture adhesives. J Prosthet Dent. 1991. 66:501–4.

9.Al RH., Dahl JE., Morisbak E., Polyzois GL. Irritation and cytotoxic potential of denture adhesives. Gerodontology. 2005. 22:177–83.

10.Gerrard WA., Winter PJ. Evaluation of toothpastes by their ability to assist rehardening of enamel in vitro. Caries Res. 1986. 20:209–16.

11.Koppang R., Berg E., Dahm S., Real C., Fl � ystrand F. A method for testing denture adhesives. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 73:486–91.

12.Ciapetti G., Cenni E., Pratelli L., Pizzoferrato A. In vitro evaluation of cell/biomaterial interaction by MTT assay. Biomaterials. 1993. 14:359–64.

13.Zhao K., Cheng XR., Chao YL., Li ZA., Han GL. Laboratory evaluation of a new denture adhesive. Dent Mater. 2004. 20:419–24.

14.Ellis B., Al-Nakash S., Lamb DJ. The composition and rheology of denture adhesives. J Dent. 1980. 8:109–18.

Fig. 1.

Dentiform and denture base used to test tensile bond strength of denture adhesive.

Fig. 2.

Position of the test specimen for measurement of tensile bond strength.

Fig. 3.

Change of optical density at time and concentration.

Fig. 4.

Tensile bond strength of saliva (S), adhesive (A), adhesive and saliva (A + S).

Fig. 5.

Tensile bond strength (N) change according to time.

Table I.

Composition of denture adhesive cream

	Component	Content (% w/w)
Vehicle	Mineral Oil Light	17.0
Vehicle	Petrolatum Blend	27.9
Flavor	Spray Dried Peppermint	0.2
Flavor	Spray Dried Spearmint	0.2
Color	Erythrosine Lake Paste	0.6
Adhesives	Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium	24.0
Adhesives	Poly (methylvinylether.maleicacid)Sodium, CalciumMixedPartialSalt	30.0
Preservative	Propylparaben NF	0.05

Table II.

Composition of artificial saliva

Component	Content
distilled water	2000 ml
gastric mucin	4.4 g
NaCl	0.762 g
CaCl2 2H2O	0.426 g
KH2PO4	1.476 g
KCl	2.228 g
pH	6.8

Table III.

Grades of cytotoxicity corresponding to cell proliferation per centage

Cell proliferation	Cytotoxicity grade
60 - 100	Not cytotoxic
30 - 60	Moderate cytotoxic
0 - 30	Severe cytotoxic

Table IV.

MTT cytotoxicity test: the means and standard deviations of optical density

	1 day	2 days	3 days	4 days
control	0.82 (0.10)	1.51 (0.23)	2.03 (0.16)	2.44 (0.20)
1%	0.64 (0.07)	1.25 (0.25)	1.48 (0.22)	1.70 (0.23)
2%	0.70 (0.10)	1.21 (0.19)	1.58 (0.33)	1.71 (0.30)

Table V.

Cell proliferation percentage and cytotoxicity grade

P	1 day	2 days	3 days	4 days	Cytotoxicity
Control	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	Not
1%	77.84	82.93	72.82	69.80	Not
2%	85.06	80.33	77.68	70.11	Not
Cytotoxicity		Not	Not	Not	Not

Table VI.

The means and standard deviations of tensile bond strength (N) with statistical comparison using one-way ANOVA and LSD post hoc test

	Mean	SD	Statistical comparison
Saliva	0.68	0.09	a
Adhesive	41.88	3.29	b
Adhesive + Saliva	45.76	3.04	c

^∗ Identical letters denote no significant differences between the groups (P > .05).

Table VII.

The means and standard deviations of tensile bond strength (N) according the time with statistical comparison using one-way ANO-VA and LSD post hoc test

	Mean	SD	Statistical comparison
0 hr	45.76	3.04	a
1 hr	44.12	3.38	a
3 hrs	40.03	3.74	b
6 hrs	37.97	1.93	b
12 hrs	32.08	3.03	c
1 days	22.04	2.87	d
2 days	18.33	3.84	d
3 days	11.33	1.15	e

^∗ Identical letters denote no significant differences between the groups (P > .05).

TOOLS

Similar articles