4.2 Article

Cytotoxic effects of octenidine mouth rinse on human fibroblasts and epithelial cells - an in vitro study

Journal

DRUG AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 3, Pages 322-330

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/01480545.2015.1121274

Keywords

oral cells; Mouth rinse; cytotoxicity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: This study compared the cytotoxicity of a new octenidine mouth rinse (MR) against gingival fibroblasts and epithelial cells with different established MRs. Methods: The following MRs were used: Octenidol (OCT), Chlorhexidine 0.2% (CHX), Listerine (LIS), Meridol (MER), Betaisodona (BET); and control (medium only). Human primary gingiva fibroblasts and human primary nasal epithelial cells were cultivated in cell-specific media (2 x 10(5) cells/ml) and treated with MR for 1, 5, and 15 min. Each test was performed 12 times. Metabolism activity was measured using a cytotoxicity assay. A cellometer analyzed cell viability, cell number, and cell diameter. The data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance with subsequent Dunnett's test and additional t-tests. Results: The cytotoxic effects of all MRs on fibroblasts and epithelial cells compared to the control depended on the contact time (p < 0.001). OCT and BET showed less influence on cell metabolism in fibroblasts than other MRs. OCT also demonstrated comparable but not significant results in epithelial cells (p > 0.005). Cell numbers of both cell types at all contact times revealed that OCT showed a less negative effect (p > 0.005), especially for epithelial cells compared to CHX after 15 min (p < 0.005). OCT and BET showed the best results for viability in fibroblasts (p > 0.005), but MER showed less influence than OCT in epithelial cells (p < 0.005). Conclusions: OCT is a potential alternative to CHX regarding cytotoxicity because of its lower cell-toxic effect against fibroblasts and epithelial cells.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available