The in vitro investigation of the effects of different containing toothpastes on gingival mesenchymal stem cells

Abstract

Background

Toothpaste is the most commonly used personal care products for maintaining oral hygiene. Its composition varies based on its intended purpose, with surfactants being one key ingredient, notable for their cleaning and foaming properties. In addition, fluoride, which is considered the most effective agent in preventing caries, is frequently included in toothpaste formulas. During brushing, gingival tissue is exposed to these components. Gingiva is a tissue from which gingival mesenchymal stem cells with healing and regeneration potential can be isolated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of these components on the viability of gingival mesenchymal stem cells in real-time.

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate, in real-time, the cytotoxic effects that may occur on gingival epithelial stem cells exposed to toothpastes with varying surfactant contents and fluoride.

Methods

Tissue samples for the isolation of gingival mesenchymal stem cells (GMSCs) were obtained during the extraction of impacted third molars. Solutions were prepared from ROCS Mg toothpaste containing sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), Cocoamidopropyl betaine (CAPB), and ROCS Sensitive containing sodium lauryl sarcosinate, SLS, and Colgate toothpaste with1450 ppm fluoride. Dulbecco's modified eagle medium was used as the negative control group. Cell viability was evaluated in real time with the xCelligence device. Two-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the effects of concentration and toothpaste type, and Tukey Post hoc tests were used for pairwise comparisons. Statistical significance was determined as 0.05 in the study.

Results
Colgate toothpaste containing SLS and 1450 ppm fluoride exhibited a statistically significantly lower cell viability compared to the other tested toothpastes (p<0.05). This was followed by ROCS Mg toothpaste, which did not contain fluoride but included SLS. ROCS Sensitive toothpaste, containing CAPB and sodium lauryl sarcosinate, showed the highest cell viability. As the concentration of toothpastes increased, a decrease in cell viability was observed.

Conclusions

As a result of the findings, it was seen that toothpastes containing SLS and fluoride had a more negative effect on the viability of GMSC cells than toothpastes containing different surfactants.

 

Keywords:

Toothpaste, Cell Viability, Stem Cells

References

Goldman AS, Yee R, Holmgren CJ, Benzian H. Global affordability of fluoride toothpaste. Globalization and Health. 2008; 4:7. doi:10.1186/1744-8603-4-7.

Forward GC, James AH, Barnett P, Jackson RJ. Gum health product formulations: what is in them and why? Periodontol 2000. 2000; 15:32-9.

Bulut M, Yıldırım S, Ulukapı I. Diş macunları ve fluor. Turkiye Klinikleri, Diş Hekimliğinde Fluor. 1. baskı. Ankara: Turkiye Klinikleri; 2020. p. 42-7.

Petrović B, Kojić S, Milić L, Luzio A, Perić T, Marković E, Stojanović GM. Toothpaste ingestion—evaluating the problem and ensuring safety: systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2023; 11:1279915. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1279915.

Zamataro, C.B.; Tenuta, L.M.; Cury, J.A. Low-fluoride dentifrice and the effect of postbrushing rinsing on fluoride availability insaliva.Eur. Arch. Paediatr. Dent.2008,9, 90–93

Kasi SR, Özcan M, Feilzer AJ. Side effects of sodium lauryl sulfate applied in toothpastes: a scoping review. Am J Dent. 2022; 35:84–88.

Tadin A, Gavic L, Govic T, et al. In vivo evaluation of fluoride and sodium lauryl sulphate in toothpaste on buccal epithelial cells toxicity. Acta Odontol Scand. 2019; 77:386–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2019.1577988.

Lindenmuller IH, Lambrecht JT. Oral care. Curr Probl Derma- tol 2011 40: 107–115.

Van Loveren C, ed. Toothpastes: an introduction to toothpaste—its purpose, history, and ingredients. Monogr Oral Sci. Basel: Karger; 2013. vol 23, pp. 1-14. doi:10.1159/000350456.

Sälzer S, Rosema NAM, Martin ECJ, Slot DE, Timmer CJ, Dörfer CE, van der Weijden GA. The effectiveness of dentifrices without and with sodium lauryl sulfate on plaque, gingivitis and gingival abrasion - A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20:443-450.

Siegel IA, Gordon HP. Surfactant-induced alterations of permeability of rabbit oral mucosa in vitro. Exp Mol Pathol 1986; 44:132-137.

Rantanen I, Tenovuo J, Pienihakkinen K, Soderling E. Effects of a betaine-containing toothpaste on subjective symptoms of dry mouth: a randomized clinical trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003; 4: 11–23.

Fiume MM, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, Hill RA, Klaassen CD, Liebler DC, et al. Amended safety assessment of fatty acyl sarcosines and sarcosinate salts as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol. 2021;40(Suppl 2):117S-133S. doi:10.1177/10915818211023881.

Arslan İ, Baygın Ö. Cavity disinfection methods used in pediatric dentistry. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2019; 29:124–132.

Souza DC, Maltz M, Hashizume LN. Fluoride retention in saliva and in dental biofilm after different home-use fluoride treatments. Braz Oral Res. 2014; 28:1.

Lee JH, Jung JY, Jeong YJ, et al. Involvement of both mitochondrial and death receptor-dependent apoptotic pathways regulated by Bcl-2 family in sodium fluoride-induced apoptosis of the human gingival fibroblasts. Toxicology 2008; 243:340–347.

Huang S., Fu R., Shyu W., 2013. Adipose‐derived stem cells: Isolation, characterization, and differentiation potential. Cell Transplant, 22, 701‐ 709.

Çerçi E, Erdost H. Kök Hücre. Atatürk Üniversitesi Vet Bil Derg. 2019;14(2):221-8. doi:10.17094/ataunivbd.483253.

Abou Neel, E. A.; Chrzanowski, W.; Salih, V. M.; Kim, H. W.; Knowles, J. C. Tissue engineering in dentistry. J. Dent. 2014, 42 (8), 915−928.

Shaikh F, Langade N, Khan M, Muglikar S, Ansari NZ. Mesenchymal stem cells and tissue engineering in dentistry. Recent Update on Mesenchymal Stem Cells. IntechOpen; 2023. pp. 1-22. doi:10.5772/intechopen.1002291.

ISO 10993-5, 2009. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices-part 5: Test for in Vitro Cytotoxicity. International organization for standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Birant S, Duran Y, Gokalp M, Akkoc T, Seymen F. Effects of different detergent-containing children's toothpastes on the viability, osteogenic, and chondrogenic differentiation of human dental periodontal ligament stem cells and gingival stem cells in vitro. Tissue Cell. 2021; 72:101538. doi: 10.1016/j.tice.2021.101538.

Ke N, Wang X, Xu X, Abassi YA. The xCELLigence system for real-time and label-free monitoring of cell viability. Methods Mol Biol. 2011; 740:33-43. doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-108-6_5.

Cvikl B, Lussi A, Gruber R. The in vitro impact of toothpaste extracts on cell viability. Eur J Oral Sci. 2015; 123:179-85. doi:10.1111/eos.12177.

Pecci-Lloret MP, López-García S, Rodríguez-Lozano FJ, Álvarez-Novoa P, García-Bernal D. In vitro biocompatibility of several children’s toothpastes on human gingival fibroblasts. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19:2954. doi:10.3390/ijerph19052954.

Stovell AG, Newton BM, Lynch RJM. Important considerations in the development of toothpaste formulations for children. Int Dent J. 2013;63(Suppl 2):57-63. doi:10.1111/idj.12083.

Kuroda, Y., Kitada, M., Wakao, S., Nishikawa, K., Tanimura, Y., Makinoshima, H., et al., 2010. Unique multipotent cells in adult human mesenchymal cell populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 8639–8643.