In vitro effects of vasoconstrictive retraction agents on primary human gingival fibroblasts

Nowakowska,Danuta; Saczko,Jolanta; Szewczyk,Anna; Michel,Olga; Ziętek,Marek; Weżgowiec,Joanna; Więckiewicz,Włodzimierz; Kulbacka,Julita

doi:10.3892/etm.2020.8462

In vitro effects of vasoconstrictive retraction agents on primary human gingival fibroblasts

Authors:
- Danuta Nowakowska
- Jolanta Saczko
- Anna Szewczyk
- Olga Michel
- Marek Ziętek
- Joanna Weżgowiec
- Włodzimierz Więckiewicz
- Julita Kulbacka
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Prosthodontics, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw 50‑425, Poland, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw 50‑556, Poland, Department of Medical Biochemistry, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw 50‑368, Poland, Department of Experimental Dentistry, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw 50‑425, Poland
Published online on: January 20, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.8462
Pages: 2037-2044
Copyright: © Nowakowska et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The biological activity of chemical retraction/displacement agents in surrounding periodontal tissues is of unquestionable importance, but the activity of these agents has not been completely elucidated. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the in vitro effects of vasoconstrictive retraction agents on primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs). A total of six commercial adrenergic solutions (0.05 and 0.01% HCl‑epinephrine, two based on 0.05% HCl‑tetrahydrozoline, 0.05% HCl‑oxymetazoline, and 10% HCl‑phenylephrine) and three experimental gel formulations (EG‑1, EG‑2, and EG‑3) were used to treat primary HGFs. The biological effect of the retraction treatment on the expression of collagen types I and III was detected by performing immunocytochemical analysis. The generation of reactive oxygen species triggered by the retraction agents were evaluated by using the dichlorofluorescein (DCF) fluorescent probe. The effect of retraction agents on the expression of fibronectin was visualized by confocal laser scanning microscopy. According to the results, experimental retraction gels did not limit the expression of collagen types I and III. EG‑3 even induced the synthesis of both types of collagen. The DCF assay indicated oxidative stress similar to the control cells for most of the selected retraction agents. Experimental gels did not cause degradation of the cellular shape and morphology of the primary HGFs. The proposed experimental retraction gels in the present study demonstrated higher biocompatibility with primary HGFs, suggesting their use as clinical vasoconstrictive agents for the application of gingival retraction with minimal damage to periodontal tissues.

View Figures

View References

1	Nowakowska D, Saczko J, Kulbacka J and Więckiewicz W: Chemical Retraction Agents–in vivo and in vitro studies into their physico-chemical properties, biocompatibility with gingival margin tissues and compatibility with elastomer impression materials. Mini Rev Med Chem. 17:435–444. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Bennani V, Schwass D and Chandler N: Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth: Current status. J Am Dent Assoc. 139:1354–1363. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Felpel LP: A review of pharmacotherapeutics for prosthetic dentistry: Part I. J Prosthet Dent. 77:293–305. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Nowakowska D: Classification of chemical retraction agents. Protet Stomatol. 58:202–208. 2008.(In Polish).
5	Phatale S, Marawar PP, Byakod G, Lagdive SB and Kalburge JV: Effect of retraction materials on gingival health: A histopathological study. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 14:35–39. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Chaudari J, Prajapati P, Patel J, Sethuraman R and Naveen YG: Comparative evaluation of the amunt of gingival displacement produced by three different retraction systems: An in vivo study. Contemp Clin Dent. 6:189–195. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Akca EA, Yildirim E, Dalkiz M, Yavuzyilmaz H and Beydemir B: Effects of different retraction medicaments on gingival tissue. Quintessence Int. 53–59. 2016.
8	Al Hamad KQ, Azar WZ, Alwaeli HA and Said KN: A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction techniques on the gingival and periodontal health. J Clin Periodontol. 35:1053–1058. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Goldberg PV, Higginbottom FL and Wilson TG: Periodontal considerations in restorative and implant therapy. Periodontol 2000. 25:100–109. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Nowakowska D and Raszewski Z: The pH value of conventional and experimental gingival margin retraction medicaments. Dent Med Probl. 47:76–80. 2010.
11	Katareva I, Georgieva K, Simeonov S, Doychinova M and Tonchev T: Application of xylometazoline for chemo-mechanical retraction of the free gingiva. J of IMAB. 21:849–852. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
12	Gerhard-Szép S: Cytotoxic potential of HCl-xylometazoline-based gingival retraction solutions. DZZ 2ß16. 38–50. 2016.
13	Buchanan WT, Thayer KE and Yoder JL: Systemic effects of epinephrine-impregnated retraction cord in fixed partial denture prosthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc. 104:482–484. 1982. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Bader JD, Bonito AJ and Shugars DA: A systematic review of cardiovascular effects of epinephrine on hypertensive dental patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 93:647–653. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Fazekas A, Csempesz F, Csabai Z and Vág J: Effects of pre-soaked retraction cords on the microcirculation of the human gingival margin. Oper Dent. 27:343–348. 2002.PubMed/NCBI
16	Csillag M, Nyiri G, Vag J and Fazekas A: Dose-related effects of epinephrine on human gingival blood flow and crevicular fluid production used as a soaking solution for chemo-mechanical tissue retraction. J Prosthet Dent. 97:6–11. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Bowles WH, Tardy SJ and Vahadi A: Evaluation of new gingival retraction agents. J Dent Res. 70:1447–1449. 1991. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Kopač I, Cvetko E, Pavlica Z and Marion L: Gingival tissue inflammatory response following treatment with chemical retraction agents in Beagle dogs. Pflugers Arch. 442 (6 Suppl 1):R145–R146. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Kopač I, Cvetko E and Marion L: Gingival inflammatory response induced by chemical retraction agents in beagle dogs. Int J Prosthodont. 15:14–19. 2002.PubMed/NCBI
20	Kostić I, Mihailović D, Najman S, Stojanović S and Kostić M: The rabbit gingival tissue response to retraction liquids and tetrahydrozoline. Vojnosanit Pregl. 71:46–51. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Kopač I, Batista U, Cvetko E and Marion L: Viability of fibroblasts in cell culture after treatment with different chemical retraction agents. J Oral Rehabil. 29:98–104. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Kopač I, Sterle M and Marion L: Electron microscopic analysis of the effects of chemical retraction agents on cultured rat keratinocytes. J Prosthet Dent. 87:51–56. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Liu CM, Huang FM, Yang LC, Chou LS, Chou MY and Chang YC: Cytotoxic effects of gingival retraction cords on human gingival fibroblasts in vitro. J Oral Rehabil. 31:368–372. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Liu J, Zhang XM, Hao PJ, Hui M and Yu HY: Comparison of cytotoxicity between chemical retraction agents on human gingival fibroblasts in vitro. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 27:202–205. 2009.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI
25	Nowakowska D, Saczko J, Kulbacka J and Choromanska A: Dynamic oxidoreductive potential of astringent retraction agents. Folia Biol (Praha). 56:263–268. 2010.PubMed/NCBI
26	Nowakowska D, Saczko J, Kulbacka J, Choromanska A and Raszewski Z: Cytotoxic potential of vasoconstrictor experimental gingival retraction agents: In vitro study on primary human gingival fibroblasts. Folia Biol (Praha). 58:37–43. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
27	Dominiak M and Saczko J: Method of primary culture of human fibroblasts for autologous augmentation. PL patent 209784B1. Filed December 4, 2006, issued October 31. 2011.
28	Nowakowska D, Panek H, Nowakowska M and Nowakowska A: Gingival retraction-survey results of Polish dentists. Part 2. Clinical habits related to retraction procedures. Protet Stomatol. 56:361–366. 2006.
29	Nowakowska D, Saczko J, Bieżuńska-Kusiak K, Choromańska A, Dubińska-Magiera M, Ziętek M and Kulbacka J: The influence of retraction agents on cytoskeleton reorganization and oxidative stress in primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs). Arch Oral Biol. 59:341–348. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Fedchenko N and Reifenrath J: Different approaches for interpretation and reporting of immunohistochemistry analysis results in the bone tissue-a review. Diagn Pathol. 9:2212014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Walker RA: Quantification of immunohistochemistry-issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment I. Histopathology. 49:406–410. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Zabel M: Immunocytochemia. 1st. PWN; Warszawa: 1999
33	Kim MC, Neal DM, Kamm RD and Asada HH: Dynamic modeling of cell migration and spreading behaviors on fibronectin coated planar substrates and micropatterned geometries. PLoS Comput Biol. 9:e10029262013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI