Mutagenicity Testing and DNA Damage Analysis of Malaysian White Portland Cement Using Ames Test and Comet Assay
Keywords:
Cytotoxicity, DNA damage, Malaysian white Portland cement, mineral trioxide aggregate, mutagenicityAbstract
The aim of the current study was to determine the mutagenic effect and DNA damage of Malaysian white Portland cement (MWPC) and White mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA) using Ames test and Comet assay. The cytotoxicity of WMTA and MWPC was evaluated using MTT assay, mutagenicity using Ames test in the absence and presence of metabolic activation system (S9 mix) on Salmonella strains (TA98, TA102, TA1535, TA1537 and TA1538) and DNA damage using Comet assay on human periodontal ligament fibroblast (HPLF) cell line. Concurrent negative and positive controls were included. Based on the MTT assay, the IC50for WMTA and MWPC was 18.71 and 19.91 mg/ml, IC25 was 3.33 and 3.55 mg/ml and IC10was 0.59 and 0.63 mg/ml respectively. These values were further employed in Comet assay. Ames test revealed that WMTA and MWPC did not cause any mutagenic effect as the number of revertant colonies was less than that of the negative control. In the Comet assay, no significant comet formation was found in HPLFs treated with WMTA, MWPC and negative control except the positive control. Hence, it can be concluded that MWPC is non-mutagenic and does not cause any DNA damage under the present test conditions.
References
. Gutmann JL, Harrison JW. Surgical endodontics. Boston: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1991;7-36.
. Torabinejad M, Watson TF, Pitt Ford TR. Sealing ability of a mineral trioxide aggregate when used as a root end filling material. J Endod. 1993;19(12):591-595.
. Torabinejad M, Chivian N. Clinical applications of mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod. 1999;25(3):197-205.
. Holland R, Souza Vd, Nery MJ, Faraco Júnior IM, Bernabé PFE, et al. Reaction of rat connective tissue to implanted dentin tubes filled with a white mineral trioxide aggregate. Braz Dent J. 2002;13(1):23-26.
. Camilleri J, Montesin FE, Papaioannou S, McDonald F, Pitt Ford TR. Biocompatibility of two commercial forms of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J. 2004;37(10):699-704.
. Ferris DM, Baumgartner JC. Perforation repair comparing two types of mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod. 2004;30(6):422-424.
. Menezes R, Bramante CM, Letra A, Carvalho VGG, Garcia RB. Histologic evaluation of pulpotomies in dog using two types of mineral trioxide aggregate and regular and white Portland cements as wound dressings. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;98(3):376-379.
. Asgary S, Parirokh M, Eghbal MJ, Brink F. Chemical differences between white and gray mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod. 2005;31(2):101-103.
. Saidon J, He J, Zhu Q, Safavi K, Spångberg LSW. Cell and tissue reactions to mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003;95(4):483-489.
. Parirokh M, Torabinejad M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: A comprehensive literature review-Part III: Clinical applications, drawbacks, and mechanism of action. J Endod. 2010;36(3):400-413.
. Torabinejad M, White DJ. Loma Linda University, assignee. Tooth filling material and method of use. 1995. US patent 5769638. June 23, 1998.
. Wucherpfennig AL, Green DB. PR 40 Mineral trioxide vs. Portland cement: Two biocompatible filling materials. J Endod. 1999;25(4):308.
. Estrela C, Bammann LL, Estrela C, Silva RS, Pécora JD. Antimicrobial and chemical study of MTA, Portland cement, calcium hydroxide paste, Sealapex and Dycal. Braz Dent J. 2000;11(1):3-9.
. Asgary S, Parirokh M, Eghbal MJ, Brink F. A comparative study of white mineral trioxide aggregate and white Portland cements using Xâ€ray microanalysis. Aust Endod J. 2004;30(3):89-92.
. De-Deus G, Coutinho-Filho T. The use of white Portland cement as an apical plug in a tooth with a necrotic pulp and wide-open apex: a case report. Int Endod J. 2007;40(8):653-660.
. Hwang YC, Lee SH, Hwang IN, Kang IC, Kim MS, et al. Chemical composition, radiopacity, and biocompatibility of Portland cement with bismuth oxide. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107(3):e96-e102.
. Camilleri J, Montesin FE, Di Silvio L, Pitt Ford TR. The chemical constitution and biocompatibility of accelerated Portland cement for endodontic use. Int Endod J. 2005;38(11):834-842.
. De Deus G, Ximenes R, Gurgel-Filho ED, Plotkowski MC, Coutinho-Filho T. Cytotoxicity of MTA and Portland cement on human ECV 304 endothelial cells. Int Endod J. 2005;38(9):604-609.
. Braz MG, Camargo EA, Salvadori DMF, Marques MEA, Ribeiro DA. Evaluation of genetic damage in human peripheral lymphocytes exposed to mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cements. J Oral Rehab. 2006;33(3):234-239.
. Ribeiro DA, Sugui MM, Matsumoto MA, Duarte MAH, Marques MEA, et al. Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of mineral trioxide aggregate and regular and white Portland cements on Chinese hamster ovary
(CHO) cells in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;101(2):258-261.
. Ahmed HMA, Luddin N, Kannan TP, Mokhtar KI, Ahmad A. Chemical analysis and biological properties of two different formulations of white Portland cements. Scanning. 2015;38(4):303-316.
. Ahmed HMA, Luddin N, Kannan TP, Mokhtar KI, Ahmad A. Cell attachment properties of Portland Cement-based endodontic materials: Biological and methodological considerations. J Endod. 2014;40(10):1517-1523.
. Mosmann T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: Application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods. 1983;65(1–2):55-63.
. Burton JD. The MTT assay to evaluate chemosensitivity. Methods Mol Med. 2005;110:69-78.
. Mortelmans K, Zeiger E. The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res. 2000;455(1–2):29-60.
. Tice RR, Agurell E, Anderson D, Burlinson B, Hartmann A, et al. Single cell gel/comet assay: guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2000;35(3):206-221.
. Ribeiro DA, Duarte MAH, Matsumoto MA, Marques MEA, Salvadori DMF. Biocompatibility in vitro tests of mineral trioxide aggregate and regular and white Portland cements. J Endod. 2005;31(8):605-607.
. Min KS, Kim HI, Park HJ, Pi SH, Hong CU, et al. Human pulp cells response to Portland cement in vitro. J Endod. 2007;33(2):163-166.
. Chang SW, Yoo HM, Park DS, Oh TS, Bae KS. Ingredients and cytotoxicity of MTA and 3 kinds of Portland cements. J Korean Acad Conser Dent. 2008;33(4):369-376.
. ISO 10993-3. International Organization for Standardization. Biological evaluation of medical devices – Tests for genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity. 2014.
. Samiei M, Asgary S, Farajzadeh M, Bargahi N, Abdolrahimi M, et al. Investigating the mutagenic effects of three commonly used pulpotomy agents using the Ames test. Adv Pharm Bull. 2015;5(1):121-125.
. Ames BN, Lee FD, Durston WE. An improved bacterial test system for the detection and classification of mutagens and carcinogens. PNAS. 1973;70(3):782-786.
. Sahebgharani M, Partoazar A. Monitoring Ames assay on urine of clinical pathology laboratories technicians. J Pharmacol Toxicol. 2008;3(3):230-235.
. Mahon GAT, Green MHL, Middleton B, Mitchell I, de G, et al. Analysis of data from microbial colony assays. Statistical evaluation of mutagenicity test data. In:Kirkland, D.J. (Ed.), The Report of the
UKEMS Sub-committee on Guidelines for Mutagenicity Testing. Part III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1989; 26e65.
. Kaplan Ç, Diril N, Şahin S, Cehreli MC. Mutagenic potentials of dental cements as detected by the Salmonella/microsome test. Biomaterials. 2004;25(18):4019-4027.
. Noushad M, Kannan TP, Husein A, Abdullah H, Ismail AR. Genotoxicity evaluation of locally produced dental porcelain – An in vitro study using the Ames and Comet assays. Toxicol in Vitro. 2009;23(6):1145-1150.
. Catalano F, Mariano F, Maina G, Bianco C, Nuzzo J, et al. An unusual case of extensive self-inflicted cement burn. Ann Burns Fire Disasters. 2013;26(1):40-43.
. Kettering JD, Torabinejad M. Investigation of mutagenicity of mineral trioxide aggregate and other commonly used root-end filling materials. J Endod. 1995;21(11):537-539.
. Maron DM, Ames BM. Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat Res. 1983;113(3-4):173-215.
. Hakura A, Suzuki S, Satoh T. Improvement of the Ames test
using human liver S9 preparation. In: Yan Z, Caldwell GW (eds). Optimization in Drug Discovery. Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. Humana Press, Totowa, New Jersey. 2004.
Singh NP, McCoy MT, Tice RR, Schneider EL. A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp Cell Res. 1988;175(1):184-191.
. Musa M, Kannan TP, Masudi SM, Ismail AR. Assessment of DNA damage caused by locally produced hydroxyapatite-silica nanocomposite using Comet assay on human lung fibroblast cell line. Mol Cell Toxicol. 2012;8(1):53-60.
. Frenzilli G, Bosco E, Barale R. Validation of single cell gel assay in human leukocytes with 18 reference compounds. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 2000;468(2):93-108.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
JBCS Publication Ethics
JBCS is committed to ensure the publication process follows specific academic ethics. Hence, Authors, Reviewers and Editors are required to conform to standards of ethical guidelines.
Authors
Authors should discuss objectively the significance of research work, technical detail and relevant references to enable others to replicate the experiments. JBCS do not accept fraudulent or inaccurate statements that may constitute towards unethical conduct.
Authors should ensure the originality of their works. In cases where the work and/or words of others have been used, appropriate acknowledgements should be made. JBCS do not accept plagiarism in all forms that constitute towards unethical publishing of an article.
This includes simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal. Corresponding author is responsible for the full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Reviewers
Reviewers of JBCS treat manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Therefore, Reviewers must ensure the confidentiality and should not use privileged information and/or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
Reviews should be conducted based on academic merit and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments. In cases where selected Reviewer feels unqualified to review a manuscript, Reviewer should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process in TWO (2) weeks time from the review offer is made.
In any reasonable circumstances, Reviewers should not consider to evaluate manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest (i.e: competitive, collaborative and/or other connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions affiliated to the papers).
Editors
Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit. JBCS strictly do not allow editors to use unpublished information of authors without the written consent of the author. Editors are required to take appropriate responsive actions if ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences requires authors to declare all competing interests in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘competing interests section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read ,The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Editors may ask for further information relating to competing interests.
Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and will be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists. Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the article.
HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow the Misconduct policy and may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s) institution or ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.
Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to Editors on request.
Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The Basel Declaration outlines fundamental principles to adhere to when conducting research in animals and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published ethical guidelines.
A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. The Editor will take account of animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.
INFORMED CONSENT
For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript, this includes to all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants.
DATA SHARING POLICY
JBCS strongly encourages that all datasets on which the conclusions of the paper rely should be available to readers. We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where available and appropriate) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files, in machine-readable format (such as spreadsheets rather than PDFs) whenever possible
Authors who do not wish to share their data must state that data will not be shared, and give the reason.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The JBCS retains the copyright of published manuscripts under the terms of the Copyright Transfer Agreement. However, the journal permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided permission to reuse, distribute and reproduce is obtained from the Journal's Editor and the original work is properly cited.
While the advice and information in this journal are believed to be true and accurate on the date of its going to press, neither the authors, the editors, nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein.
Copyright (c) 2023 Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (JBCS)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
