Cytotoxicity of soft denture lining materials depending on their component types.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the difference in cytotoxicity of soft denture lining materials depending on their component types.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten commercially available soft denture lining materials (SDLM) consisting of five silicone-based materials and five acrylic-based materials were evaluated. For the MTT test, cured SDLM samples were extracted in a culture medium for 24 hours, and L-929 cells were incubated in the extracted medium for 24 hours. Cell viability was determined using a microplate reader and compared with those of the negative control, which were cultured in a culture medium without test material. Agar overlay test was performed for the cured SDLM samples according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 7405.

RESULTS

Among silicone-based lining materials, GC Reline Soft, Mollosil plus, and Dentusil showed a cell viability of 107.2% ± 4.5%, 102.3% ± 2.84%, and 93.0% ± 8.0%, respectively, compared with the control. Mucopren and Sofreliner Tough displayed significantly lower cell viability (86.4% ± 10.3% and 81.5% ± 4.3%,respectively) compared with the control (P < .05). Among acrylic-based materials, Kooliner, Visco-gel, Soft liner, Dura Base, and Coe-Soft displayed cell viability of 99.2% ± 14.6%, 93.1% ± 9.5%, 89.1% ± 9.8%, 87.6% ± 7.9%, and 75.9% ± 15.7%, respectively, compared with the control. Dura Base and Coe-Soft displayed significantly lower cell viability compared to the control. However, for all tested materials, cell viability exceeded the requirement limit of 70% specified in ISO 10993-5. In the agar overlay test, all five silicone-based materials and acrylic-based Kooliner were ranked as "noncytotoxic." However, Visco-gel was ranked as "mildly cytotoxic," and Soft liner, Coe-Soft, and Dura Base were ranked as "moderately cytotoxic."

CONCLUSION

When an acrylic-based soft denture lining material is used, the possibility of a cytotoxic effect should be considered.