Comparison between the in-vitro cytotoxicity of three different multilayer thermoplastic clear aligner materials


Article Sidebar

Pdf 312
Published: Feb 6, 2022
Updated: 2022-02-06
Versions:
2022-02-06 (4)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37983/IJDM.2022.4101
Keywords:
Clear Aligners, Cytotoxicity, Invisalign, Fibroblasts
Section
Original Articles
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Main Article Content

Spencer Marsh
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
Ravikumar Anthony
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
Blair Barnett
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
Chen Shou
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
Kristin Saunders
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

Abstract

Background: Clear aligner therapy (CAT) is a prominent orthodontic treatment option. CAT was formerly only used to treat mild malocclusions, but with developments in technology, it can now treat much more complex malocclusions. With the increasing popularity of CAT and technological improvements, led to the development of Invisalign’s SmartTrack technology, the first commercially available aligner material that used multi-layer plastic to facilitate tooth movement. Multiple layers provide superior mechanical properties that eluded previous single layer plastics.


Aim: To study the cytotoxicity properties of different thermoplastic multilayer clear aligner materials on human primary gingival fibroblasts (HGFs).


Materials and methods: Three multilayered clear aligner materials were considered in this study: SmartTrack (Align Technology, San Jose, CA, USA), Zendura FLX (Bay Materials, Fremont, CA, USA), and ComfortTrack (Great Lakes Dental Technologies, Tonawanda, NY, USA). The samples were incubated at 37oC in DMEM (0.1 mg/mL) for 21 days. The cell viability of HGFs cultured with each sample medium was then compared to a negative control assessed by MTT assay.


Results: The results showed slight toxicity for each one of the samples tested. The highest cytotoxicity level seen in the HGFs was SmartTrack (65.5% ± 2.5 of cell viability), followed by Zendura FLX (72.3% ± 8.6), and the least was observed by ComfortTrack (80.8% ± 2.1).


Conclusion: The Under the experimental conditions of the study, all of the materials tested displayed slight levels of cytotoxicity. SmartTrack was measured as the most cytotoxic. There were no statistical differences found between the three aligner materials (P< 0.05).

Article Details


How to Cite
Marsh, S., Anthony, R., Barnett, B., Shou, C., & Saunders, K. (2022). Comparison between the in-vitro cytotoxicity of three different multilayer thermoplastic clear aligner materials. International Journal of Dental Materials, 4(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.37983/IJDM.2022.4101
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Spencer Marsh, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

Resident, Department of Developmental Dentistry, Division of Orthodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, US.

Ravikumar Anthony, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

Orthodontic Program Director, Department of Developmental Dentistry, Division of Orthodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, US.

Blair Barnett, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

Orthodontic Part-time Faculty, Department of Developmental Dentistry, Division of Orthodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, US.

Chen Shou, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

Pediatric Full-time Faculty, Department of Developmental Dentistry, Division of Orthodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San  Antonio, US.

Kristin Saunders, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

Orthodontic Part-time Faculty, Department of Developmental Dentistry, Division of Orthodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, US.

References

  1. Alansari RA, Faydhi DA, Ashour BS, Alsaggaf DH, Shuman MT, Ghoneim SH, Linjawi AI, Marghalani HY, Dause RR, Adult perceptions of different orthodontic appliances. Patient Preference and Adherence 2019:13 2119–2128. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S234449
  2. Rosvall MS, Fields HW, Ziuchkovski JP, Rosenstiel SF, Johnston WM, Attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:276.e1-276e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.011
  3. Ziuchkovski JP, Fields HW, Johnston WM, Lindsey DT. Assessment of perceived orthodontic appliance attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133:S68-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.07.025
  4. Walton DK, Fields HW, Johnston WM, Rosenstiel SF, Firestone AR, Christensen JC. Orthodontic appliance preferences of children and adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138:698.e1-698.e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.06.012
  5. Buschang PH, Shaw SG, Ross M, Crosby D, Campbell PM. Comparative time efficiency of aligner therapy and conventional edgewise braces. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:391–396. https://doi.org/10.2319/062113-466
  6. Cardoso PC, Espinosa DG, Mecenas P, Flores-Mir C, Normando D, Pain level between clear aligners and fixed appliances: a systematic review. Prog Orthod. 2020;21:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0303-z
  7. Bräscher AK, Zuran D, Feldmanmn Jr. RE, Benrath J, Patient survery on Invisalign treatment comparing the SmartTrack material to the previously used aligner material. J Orofac Orthop. 2016;77:432–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0051-3
  8. Wheeler T, Patel N, McGorray, Effect of aligner material on orthodontic tooth movement. Journal of Aligner Orthodontics 2017;1:21-27
  9. Giancotti A, Greco M, Gianluca M Extraction treatment using Invisalign technique. Prog Orthod. 2006;7;32-43
  10. Garnett BS, Mahood K, Nguyen M, Al-khateeb A, Liu S, Boyd R, Oh H, Cephalometric comparisons of adult anterior open bite treatment using clear aligners and fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2019;89:3-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/010418-4.1
  11. Bucci R, Rongo R, Levatè, Michelotti A, Barone S, Razionale AV, D’Antò, Thickness of orthodontic clear aligners after thermoforming and after 10 days of intraoral exposure: a prospective clinical study. Prog Orthod. 2019;20:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-019-0289-6
  12. Align Technologies Inc. (2019, January 29) Align technology announces record 2018 financial results [Press release]. Retrieved from http://investor.aligntech.com/news-releases/news-release-details/align-technology-announces-record-2018-financial-results
  13. Buljan ZI, Ribaric SP, Abram M, Ivankovic A, Spalk S, In vitro oxidative stress induced by conventional and self-ligating brackets. Angle Orthod. 2012;82:340-345. https://doi.org/10.2319/061811-395.1
  14. Rongo R, Valletta R, Bucci R, Rivieccio V, Galeotti A, Michelotti A, D’antò V, In vitro biocompatibility of nickel-titanium esthetic orthodontic archwires. Angle Orthod. 2016;86:789-795. https://doi.org/10.2319/100415-663.1
  15. Ahrari F, Afshari JT, Poosti M, Brook A, Cytotoxcity of orthodontic bonding adhesives resins on human oral fibroblasts. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32:688–692. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq019
  16. Eliades T, Pratsinis H, Athanasiou AE, Eliades G, Kletsas D, Cytotoxicity and estrogenicity of Invisalign appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:100-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.03.006
  17. Premaraj T, Simet S, Beatty M, Premaraj S, Oral epithelial cell reaction after exposure to Invisalign plastic material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145:64-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.09.011
  18. Martina S, Rongo R, Bucci R, Razionale AV, Valletta R, D’Antò V, In vitro cytotoxicity of different thermoplastic materials for clear aligners. Angle Orthod. 2019;89:942-945. https://doi.org/10.2319/091718-674.1
  19. Sjögren G, Sletten G, Dahl J, Cytotoxicity of dental allowys, metals, and ceramics assess by Millipore filter, agar overlay, and MTT tests. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;82:229-236. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.107227
  20. Vande Vannet B, Mohebbian N, Wehrbein H. Toxicity of used orthodontic archwires assessed by three-dimensional cell culture. Eur J Orthod. 2006;28:426–432. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl002
  21. Sasaki K, Tanaka N, Watanaba M, Yamada M. Comparison of cytotoxic effects of chemicals in for different cell types. Toxic. In Vitro. 1991;5/6:403-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/0887-2333(91)90061-H
  22. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2007.
  23. Lombardo L, Martines E, Mazzanti V, Arreghini A, Mollica F, Siciliani G; Stress relaxation properties of four orthodontic aligner materials: a 24-hour in vitro study. Angle Orthod. 2017; 87:11–18. https://doi.org/10.2319/113015-813.1
  24. Lee Ik, Lee Mj, Jang Hs. The interrelationship between human gingival fibroblast differentiation and cultivating time. Tissue Engineering Regenerative Medicine. 2013;10: 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-013-0371-y
  25. D’Antó V, Spagnuolo G, Polito I, Paduano S, Ambrosio L, Valletta R. In vitro cytotoxicity of orthodontic primers. Prog Orthod. 2009;10:4–11
  26. Align Technologies. (2017, May 24) Align Technology Receives U.S. Patents for SmartTrack(R) Invisalign(R) Aligner Material [Press release]. https://investor.aligntech.com/static-files/2fded79c-c37e-47e6-b7d3-25e43c96f744
  27. Schuster S, Eliades G, Zinelis S, Eliades T, Bradley G. Structural conformation and leaching from in vitro aged and retrieved Invisalign appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2004;136:725-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.021
  28. Goncalves TS, Menezes LM, Trindade C, Machado MS, Thomas P, Fenech M, Henriques J. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of orthodontic bands with or without silver soldered joints. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 2014;76:21-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2014.01.011
  29. Stockert J, Horobin R, Colombo L, Blazquez-Castro A. Tetrazolium salts and formazan products in Cell Biology: Viability, flouresence imaging, and labeling perspectives. Acta Histochemica. 2018;120:159-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acthis.2018.02.005
  30. Berridge M, Herst P, Tan A. Tetrazolium dyes as tools in cell biology: new insights into their cellular reduction. Biotechnology Annual Review. 2005;11:127-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1387-2656(05)11004-7