<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<italic>Backround:</italic> The in vitro cytotoxic effects of six different clear aligner materials were evaluated using the MTT analysis.
<italic>Methods:</italic> The clear aligner material samples [Duran (ScheuDental GmbH, Iserlohn, Germany), Zendura-Flx (Bay Materials LLC, Fremont, CA, USA), Taglus (Laxmi Dental Export Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, India), Smart Track (Align Technology, San Jose, CA, USA), Zendura (Bay Materials LLC, Fremont, CA, USA), Essix C + (Essix® (Raintree Essix, Inc., 4001 Division St, Metairie, LA-USA)] were initially kept in a saline solution in airtight test tubes for 8 weeks at 37°C. According to the recommended ISO standards, the weights of the samples were divided by the volumes of the dilutions in the ratio of 0.1 g/ml. To evaluate the cytotoxicity of the samples, an MTT analysis was performed using a human gingival fibroblast cell line (HGF). To analyse the data, the Kruskal– Wallis test was applied (a=0.05).
<italic>Results:</italic> Zendura was the most cytotoxic material resulting in 67.3 ± 16.20% cell viability, followed by Smart Track with 87.6 ± 5.53% cell viability. While Duran, Essix C + had 92.6 ± 26.34% and 94.9 ± 8.54% cell viability, Zendura-Flx, Taglus had 106.9 ± 12.76% and 113.183 ± 7.45% cell viability, respectively.
<italic>Conclusion:</italic> While Zendura and Smart Track showed mild cytotoxicity, other materials showed greater cell viabilities. According to the ISO standards, the clinical use of each brand of aligners, except Zendura, may be considered reliable. Taking into account standard deviation, Zendura and Duran should be used with caution. The suppliers of aligners should adhere to the manufacturer’s recommendations since an increase in ion release might arise from material wear.
</abstract>

Backround: The in vitro cytotoxic effects of six different clear aligner materials were evaluated using the MTT analysis.
Methods: The clear aligner material samples [Duran (ScheuDental GmbH, Iserlohn, Germany), Zendura-Flx (Bay Materials LLC, Fremont, CA, USA), Taglus (Laxmi Dental Export Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, India), Smart Track (Align Technology, San Jose, CA, USA), Zendura (Bay Materials LLC, Fremont, CA, USA), Essix C + (Essix® (Raintree Essix, Inc., 4001 Division St, Metairie, LA-USA)] were initially kept in a saline solution in airtight test tubes for 8 weeks at 37°C. According to the recommended ISO standards, the weights of the samples were divided by the volumes of the dilutions in the ratio of 0.1 g/ml. To evaluate the cytotoxicity of the samples, an MTT analysis was performed using a human gingival fibroblast cell line (HGF). To analyse the data, the Kruskal– Wallis test was applied (a=0.05).
Results: Zendura was the most cytotoxic material resulting in 67.3 ± 16.20% cell viability, followed by Smart Track with 87.6 ± 5.53% cell viability. While Duran, Essix C + had 92.6 ± 26.34% and 94.9 ± 8.54% cell viability, Zendura-Flx, Taglus had 106.9 ± 12.76% and 113.183 ± 7.45% cell viability, respectively.
Conclusion: While Zendura and Smart Track showed mild cytotoxicity, other materials showed greater cell viabilities. According to the ISO standards, the clinical use of each brand of aligners, except Zendura, may be considered reliable. Taking into account standard deviation, Zendura and Duran should be used with caution. The suppliers of aligners should adhere to the manufacturer’s recommendations since an increase in ion release might arise from material wear.

Cytotoxicity evaluation of different clear aligner materials using MTT analysis

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

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

{"article-title":"Cytotoxicity evaluation of different clear aligner materials using MTT analysis"}

Backround: The in vitro cytotoxic effects of six different clear aligner materials were evaluated using the MTT analysis.
Methods: The clear aligner material...

Cytotoxicity evaluation of different clear aligner materials using MTT analysis

Online veröffentlicht: 21. Nov. 2022

Seitenbereich: 348 - 354

Eingereicht: 01. Feb. 2022

Akzeptiert: 01. Sept. 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2022-0034

© 2022 Esra Cifci Ozkan et al., published by Sciendo

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