Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry

Original Article

In vitro toxicity of propolis in comparison with other primary teeth pulpotomy agents on human fibroblasts

Corresponding Author

Sanaa Najeh Al-Haj Ali

Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Qassim University, Qassim, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence

S. N. Al-Haj Ali, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Qassim University, PO Box 1126, 51431 Qassim, Saudi Arabia.

Tel: +966504603339

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

Sanaa Najeh Al-Haj Ali,

Corresponding Author

Sanaa Najeh Al-Haj Ali

Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Qassim University, Qassim, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence

S. N. Al-Haj Ali, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Qassim University, PO Box 1126, 51431 Qassim, Saudi Arabia.

Tel: +966504603339

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 27 April 2015

https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12157

Citations: 9

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the in vitro toxicity of propolis with other primary teeth pulpotomy medicaments.

Methods

Human periodontal ligament (PDL) cells were subjected to different concentrations of propolis, formocresol, ferric sulfate, and gray mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (0.05, 0.5, 5, 50, and 100 μg/mL) for 24 h at 37°C. Cells that were not exposed to the tested materials served as the negative control. In vitro toxicity was assessed using 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay. Statistical analysis of the data was accomplished using anova and Tukey statistical tests (P < 0.05).

Results

Only propolis and gray MTA had comparable cell viability to the negative control group. Almost all remaining concentrations of tested materials were significantly inferior to the negative control after 24 h of exposure (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Propolis and MTA are more biocompatible than formocresol and ferric sulfate since they were both able to preserve PDL fibroblasts for up to 24 h.

References

1McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Dentistry for the child and adolescent, 9th edn. Missouri: Mosby, 2011: 343–63.
10.1016/B978-0-323-05724-0.50023-0
Google Scholar
2Fallahinejad Ghajari M, Mirkarimi M, Vatanpour M, Kharrazi Fard MJ. Comparison of pulpotomy with formocresol and MTA in primary molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J 2008; 3: 45–9.
Google Scholar
3Alafandy AS. Assessment of crude propolis as a direct pulp capping agent in primary and immature permanent teeth. ENDO 2014; 8: 199–206.
Google Scholar
4Prabhu NT, Munshi AK. Clinical, radiographic and histological observations of the radicular pulp following “feracrylum” pulpotomy. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1997; 21: 151–6.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
5Bahrololoomi Z, Moeintaghavi A, Emtiazi M, Hosseini G. Clinical and radiographic comparison of primary molars after formocresol and electrosurgical pulpotomy: a randomised clinical trial. Indian J Dent Res 2008; 19: 219–23.
10.4103/0970-9290.42954
PubMed Google Scholar
6Sonmez D, Sari S, Çetinbas T. A comparison of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a long-term follow-up. J Endod 2008; 34: 950–5.
10.1016/j.joen.2008.05.009
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Ranly DM. Pulpotomy therapy in primary teeth: new modalities for old rationales. Pediatr Dent 1994; 16: 403–9.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
8Fallahinejad Ghajari M, Mirkarimi M, Vatanpour M, Kharrazi Fard MJ. Comparison of formocresol and ferric sulfate pulpotomy in primary molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent (Tehran) 2008; 6: 29–36.
Google Scholar
9Noorollahian H. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulp medicaments for pulpotomies in primary molars. Br Dent J 2008; 204: E20.
10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.319
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10Gulinelli JL, Panzarini SR, Fattah CM et al. Effect of root surface treatment with propolis and fluoride in delayed tooth replantation in rats. Dent Traumatol 2008; 24: 651–7.
10.1111/j.1600-9657.2008.00667.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11Sonmez S, Kirilmaz L, Yucesoy M, Ÿucel B, Yilmaz B. The effect of bee propolis on oral pathogens and human gingival fibroblasts. J Ethnopharmacol 2005; 102: 371–6.
10.1016/j.jep.2005.06.035
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12De Funari CS, de Oliveira Ferro V, Mathor MB. Analysis of propolis from Baccharis dracunculifolia DC (Compositae) and its effects on mouse fibroblasts. J Ethnopharmacol 2007; 111: 206–12.
10.1016/j.jep.2006.11.032
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Özan F, Polat ZA, Er K, Özan U, Değer O. Effect of propolis on survival of periodontal ligament cells: new storage media for avulsed teeth. J Endod 2007; 33: 570–3.
10.1016/j.joen.2006.12.021
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Burdock GA. Review of the biological properties and toxicity of bee propolis (Propolis). Food Chem Toxicol 1998; 36: 347–63.
10.1016/S0278-6915(97)00145-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Yaghoubi MJ, Ghorbani GH, Soleimanian Zad S, Satari R. Antimicrobial activity of Iranian propolis and its chemical composition. DARU 2007; 15: 45–8.
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Ahangari Z, Naseri M, Jalili M, Mansouri Y, Mashhadiabbas F, Torkaman A. Effect of propolis on dentin regeneration and the potential role of dental pulp stem cell in Guinea pigs. Cell J 2012; 13: 223–8.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Sabir A, Tabbu CR, Agustiono P, Sosroseno W. Histological analysis of rat dental pulp tissue capped with propolis. J Oral Sci 2005; 47: 135.
10.2334/josnusd.47.135
PubMed Google Scholar
18Parolia A, Kundabala M, Rao NN et al. A comparative histological analysis of human pulp following direct pulp capping with Propolis, mineral trioxide aggregate and Dycal. Aust Dent J 2010; 55: 59–64.
10.1111/j.1834-7819.2009.01179.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Al-Shaher A, Wallace J, Agarwal S, Bretz W, Baugh D. Effect of Propolis on Human Fibroblasts from the Pulp and Periodontal Ligament. J Endod 2004; 30: 359–61.
10.1097/00004770-200405000-00012
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20Ozório JE, Carvalho LF, de Oliveira DA, de Sousa-Neto MD, Perez DE. Standardized propolis extract and calcium hydroxide as pulpotomy agents in primary pig teeth. J Dent Child (Chic) 2012; 79: 53–8.
PubMed Google Scholar
21Lima RV, Esmeraldo MR, de Carvalho MG et al. Pulp repair after pulpotomy using different pulp capping agents: a comparative histologic analysis. Pediatr Dent 2011; 33: 14–8.
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22Esmeraldo MR, Carvalho MG, Carvalho RA, Lima Rde F, Costa EM. Inflammatory effect of green propolis on dental pulp in rats. Braz Oral Res 2013; 27: 417–22.
10.1590/S1806-83242013005000022
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23Al-Haj Ali SN, Al-Jundi S, Mhaidat N. Comparison of coconut water and Jordanian propolis on survival of bench-dried periodontal ligament cells: an in vitro cell culture study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013; 6: 161–5.
10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1211
PubMed Google Scholar
24Al-Haj Ali SN, Al-Jundi SH, Ditto DJ. In vitro toxicity of formocresol, ferric sulphate, and grey MTA on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2015; 16: 51–5.
10.1007/s40368-014-0147-7
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
25Sjogren G, Sletten G, Dahl JE. Cytotoxicity of dental alloys, metals, and ceramics assessed by millipore filter, agar overlay, and MTT tests. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 84: 229–36.
10.1067/mpr.2000.107227
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26Block R. Are you still using formocresol? An update. J Tenn Dent Assoc 2009; 89: 14–7.
PubMed Google Scholar
27De Menezes JV, Takamori ER, Bijella MF, Granjeiro JM. In vitro toxicity of MTA compared with other primary teeth pulpotomy agents. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009; 33: 217–21.
10.17796/jcpd.33.3.cq7677j4l532r1rg
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28Amaral M, Gomes PS, Lopes MA et al. Cytotoxicity evaluation of nanocrystalline diamond coatings by fibroblast cell cultures. Acta Biomater 2009; 5: 755–63.
10.1016/j.actbio.2008.08.015
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29Karimjee CK, Koka S, Rallis DM, Gound TG. Cellular toxicity of mineral trioxide aggregate mixed with an alternative delivery vehicle. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 102: 115–20.
10.1016/j.tripleo.2005.12.020
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30Van Wyk CWO, Maritz JS. Cultured pulp fibroblasts: are they suitable for in vitro cytotoxicity testing? J Oral Pathol Med 2001; 30: 168–77.
10.1034/j.1600-0714.2001.300307.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31Issa Y, Watts DC, Brunton PA, Waters CM, Duxbury AJ. Resin composite monomers alter MTT and LDH activity of human gingival fibroblasts in vitro. Dent Mater 2004; 20: 12–20.
10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00053-8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32Tipton DA, Lyle B, Babich H, Dabbous M. In vitro cytotoxic and anti- inflammatory effects of myrrh oil on human gingival fibroblasts and epithelial cells. Toxicol In Vitro 2003; 17: 301–10.
10.1016/S0887-2333(03)00018-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33Al-Haj Ali SN, Al-Jundi SH, Ditto DJ. In-vitro toxicity of grey MTA in comparison to white MTA on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2014; 15: 429–33.
10.1007/s40368-014-0134-z
PubMed Google Scholar
34Greenaway W, Scaysbrook T, Whatley FR. The composition and plant origins of propolis: a report of work at oxford. Bee World 1990; 71: 107–18.
10.1080/0005772X.1990.11099047
Web of Science® Google Scholar
35Bankova V, Castro SL, Marcucci MC. Propolis: recent advances in chemistry and plant origin. Apidologie 2000; 31: 3–15.
10.1051/apido:2000102
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
36Bankova V. Chemical diversity of propolis and the problem of standardization. J Ethnopharmacol 2005; 100: 114–7.
10.1016/j.jep.2005.05.004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
37Kujumgiev A, Tsvetkova I, Serkedjieva Y, Bankova V, Christov R, Popov S. Antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral activity of propolis of different geographic origin. J Ethnopharmacol 1999; 64: 235–40.
10.1016/S0378-8741(98)00131-7
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
38Kumazawa S, Yoneda M, Shibata I, Kanaeda J, Hamasaka T, Nakayama T. Direct evidence for the plant origin of Brazilian propolis by the observation of honeybee behavior and phytochemical analysis. Chem Pharm Bull 2003; 51: 740–2.
10.1248/cpb.51.740
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
39Park YK, Alencar SM, Aguiar CL. Botanical origin and chemical composition of Brazilian propolis. J Agric Food Chem 2002; 50: 2502–6.
10.1021/jf011432b
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
40Marcucci MC, Bankova V. Chemical composition, plant origin and biological activity of Brazilian propolis. Curr Top Phytochem 1999; 2: 115–23.
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume7, Issue3

August 2016

Pages 308-313

In vitro toxicity of propolis in comparison with other primary teeth pulpotomy agents on human fibroblasts

Abstract

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

In vitro toxicity of propolis in comparison with other primary teeth pulpotomy agents on human fibroblasts

Abstract

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information