Are desensitizing toothpastes equally biocompatible and effective against microorganisms?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Camargo, Samira Esteves Afonso [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: Milhan, Noala Vicensoto Moreira [UNESP], Saraiva, Fernanda de Oliveira [UNESP], de Oliveira, Jonatas Rafael [UNESP], de Oliveira, Luciane Dias [UNESP], Camargo, Carlos Henrique Ribeiro [UNESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201701413
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/179392
Resumo: The aims of this study were evaluate cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, antimicrobial activity of desensitizing toothpastes compared to a common one and the surface roughness of tooth enamel submitted to brushing with these toothpastes. Samples of three desensitizing toothpastes (Colgate Sensitive, Sensodyne and Oral B Sensitive) and common toothpaste (Colgate) were placed in contact with gingival human fibroblasts. Cytotoxicity and genotoxocity were measured by MTT assay and micronucleus test. Antimicrobial activity of the toothpastes extracts against C. albicans, S. mutans and S. aureus were assessed. For surface roughness evaluation, bovine teeth were submitted to 10.000 brushing cycles. The results were analyzed statically using Mann-Whitney U, ANOVA and Z tests (p<0.05). All toothpastes caused cytotoxic effect to the cells (p<0.05), except Colgate Sensitive. The toothpastes did not increase the number of micronuclei compared to the untreated control group. Colgate eliminated all the evaluated microorganisms at lower concentrations compared to Colgate Sensitive and Oral B Sensitive, which were not able to eliminate S. aureus. Sensodyne did not reach the minimum microbicidal concentration. The surface roughness of tooth enamel increased after brushing with Colgate Sensitive and Oral B Sensitive, however the comparison between groups showed no difference on the enamel surface roughness presented by desensitizing toothpastes when compared with the common one (p>0.05). Based on these results, we can conclude that although none toothpaste has induced genotoxicity, Colgate Sensitive was also not cytotoxic. Colgate was the most effective against the microorganisms, and there were no differences on the enamel surface roughness between the groups.
id UNSP_6c651720f15af87bb433cd6a74876f08
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/179392
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Are desensitizing toothpastes equally biocompatible and effective against microorganisms?AntimicrobialBiocompatibilityDesensitizingRoughnessToothpastesThe aims of this study were evaluate cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, antimicrobial activity of desensitizing toothpastes compared to a common one and the surface roughness of tooth enamel submitted to brushing with these toothpastes. Samples of three desensitizing toothpastes (Colgate Sensitive, Sensodyne and Oral B Sensitive) and common toothpaste (Colgate) were placed in contact with gingival human fibroblasts. Cytotoxicity and genotoxocity were measured by MTT assay and micronucleus test. Antimicrobial activity of the toothpastes extracts against C. albicans, S. mutans and S. aureus were assessed. For surface roughness evaluation, bovine teeth were submitted to 10.000 brushing cycles. The results were analyzed statically using Mann-Whitney U, ANOVA and Z tests (p<0.05). All toothpastes caused cytotoxic effect to the cells (p<0.05), except Colgate Sensitive. The toothpastes did not increase the number of micronuclei compared to the untreated control group. Colgate eliminated all the evaluated microorganisms at lower concentrations compared to Colgate Sensitive and Oral B Sensitive, which were not able to eliminate S. aureus. Sensodyne did not reach the minimum microbicidal concentration. The surface roughness of tooth enamel increased after brushing with Colgate Sensitive and Oral B Sensitive, however the comparison between groups showed no difference on the enamel surface roughness presented by desensitizing toothpastes when compared with the common one (p>0.05). Based on these results, we can conclude that although none toothpaste has induced genotoxicity, Colgate Sensitive was also not cytotoxic. Colgate was the most effective against the microorganisms, and there were no differences on the enamel surface roughness between the groups.Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Department of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis Institute of Science and Technology UNESP-Univ Estadual PaulistaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Institute of Science and Technology UNESP-Univ Estadual PaulistaDepartment of Biosciences and Oral Diagnosis Institute of Science and Technology UNESP-Univ Estadual PaulistaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Institute of Science and Technology UNESP-Univ Estadual PaulistaFAPESP: #2012/00574-4Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Camargo, Samira Esteves Afonso [UNESP]Milhan, Noala Vicensoto Moreira [UNESP]Saraiva, Fernanda de Oliveira [UNESP]de Oliveira, Jonatas Rafael [UNESP]de Oliveira, Luciane Dias [UNESP]Camargo, Carlos Henrique Ribeiro [UNESP]2018-12-11T17:35:00Z2018-12-11T17:35:00Z2017-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article604-611application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201701413Brazilian Dental Journal, v. 28, n. 5, p. 604-611, 2017.1806-47600103-6440http://hdl.handle.net/11449/17939210.1590/0103-6440201701413S0103-644020170005006042-s2.0-85035116766S0103-64402017000500604.pdfScopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengBrazilian Dental Journal0,476info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2023-11-13T06:09:39Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/179392Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T17:32:55.682359Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Are desensitizing toothpastes equally biocompatible and effective against microorganisms?
title Are desensitizing toothpastes equally biocompatible and effective against microorganisms?
spellingShingle Are desensitizing toothpastes equally biocompatible and effective against microorganisms?
Camargo, Samira Esteves Afonso [UNESP]
Antimicrobial
Biocompatibility
Desensitizing
Roughness
Toothpastes
title_short Are desensitizing toothpastes equally biocompatible and effective against microorganisms?
title_full Are desensitizing toothpastes equally biocompatible and effective against microorganisms?
title_fullStr Are desensitizing toothpastes equally biocompatible and effective against microorganisms?
title_full_unstemmed Are desensitizing toothpastes equally biocompatible and effective against microorganisms?
title_sort Are desensitizing toothpastes equally biocompatible and effective against microorganisms?
author Camargo, Samira Esteves Afonso [UNESP]
author_facet Camargo, Samira Esteves Afonso [UNESP]
Milhan, Noala Vicensoto Moreira [UNESP]
Saraiva, Fernanda de Oliveira [UNESP]
de Oliveira, Jonatas Rafael [UNESP]
de Oliveira, Luciane Dias [UNESP]
Camargo, Carlos Henrique Ribeiro [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 Milhan, Noala Vicensoto Moreira [UNESP]
Saraiva, Fernanda de Oliveira [UNESP]
de Oliveira, Jonatas Rafael [UNESP]
de Oliveira, Luciane Dias [UNESP]
Camargo, Carlos Henrique Ribeiro [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Camargo, Samira Esteves Afonso [UNESP]
Milhan, Noala Vicensoto Moreira [UNESP]
Saraiva, Fernanda de Oliveira [UNESP]
de Oliveira, Jonatas Rafael [UNESP]
de Oliveira, Luciane Dias [UNESP]
Camargo, Carlos Henrique Ribeiro [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Antimicrobial
Biocompatibility
Desensitizing
Roughness
Toothpastes
topic Antimicrobial
Biocompatibility
Desensitizing
Roughness
Toothpastes
description The aims of this study were evaluate cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, antimicrobial activity of desensitizing toothpastes compared to a common one and the surface roughness of tooth enamel submitted to brushing with these toothpastes. Samples of three desensitizing toothpastes (Colgate Sensitive, Sensodyne and Oral B Sensitive) and common toothpaste (Colgate) were placed in contact with gingival human fibroblasts. Cytotoxicity and genotoxocity were measured by MTT assay and micronucleus test. Antimicrobial activity of the toothpastes extracts against C. albicans, S. mutans and S. aureus were assessed. For surface roughness evaluation, bovine teeth were submitted to 10.000 brushing cycles. The results were analyzed statically using Mann-Whitney U, ANOVA and Z tests (p<0.05). All toothpastes caused cytotoxic effect to the cells (p<0.05), except Colgate Sensitive. The toothpastes did not increase the number of micronuclei compared to the untreated control group. Colgate eliminated all the evaluated microorganisms at lower concentrations compared to Colgate Sensitive and Oral B Sensitive, which were not able to eliminate S. aureus. Sensodyne did not reach the minimum microbicidal concentration. The surface roughness of tooth enamel increased after brushing with Colgate Sensitive and Oral B Sensitive, however the comparison between groups showed no difference on the enamel surface roughness presented by desensitizing toothpastes when compared with the common one (p>0.05). Based on these results, we can conclude that although none toothpaste has induced genotoxicity, Colgate Sensitive was also not cytotoxic. Colgate was the most effective against the microorganisms, and there were no differences on the enamel surface roughness between the groups.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-09-01
2018-12-11T17:35:00Z
2018-12-11T17:35:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201701413
Brazilian Dental Journal, v. 28, n. 5, p. 604-611, 2017.
1806-4760
0103-6440
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/179392
10.1590/0103-6440201701413
S0103-64402017000500604
2-s2.0-85035116766
S0103-64402017000500604.pdf
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201701413
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/179392
identifier_str_mv Brazilian Dental Journal, v. 28, n. 5, p. 604-611, 2017.
1806-4760
0103-6440
10.1590/0103-6440201701413
S0103-64402017000500604
2-s2.0-85035116766
S0103-64402017000500604.pdf
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Dental Journal
0,476
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 604-611
application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1808128825026936832