Abstract
Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the biological effects of four chemical caries removal materials and to assess their cytotoxicity using human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs). Methods: The products evaluated are: 1 – papain-based product (BRIX 3000®); 2 – papain/chloramine based products (NATURAL-CARE and Papacárie Duo®); and 3 – chloramine based product (Cariesolut). The following in vitro experiments were carried out: IC50 measurement, cell metabolic activity (MTT) assay, cell migration, immunofluorescence experiment, cell apoptosis analysis, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production analysis. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test (p < 0.05). Results: The IC50 values were: Brix 3000: 0.596%; Papacárie Duo: 0.052%; NATURAL CARE: 1.034%; and Cariesolut: 0.020%. The MTT assays showed non-adequate cell viability of all chemical-mechanical caries removal tested at 2% at 24, 48, and 72 h (p < 0.001). The same behaviour was observed at 0.1% in the Papacárie Duo and Cariesolut groups. In contrast, 0.1% of Brix 3000 at all times and NATURAL CARE at 24 h treated cells showed cell viability rates similar to the control group. At 0.01% only Brix 3000 did not show statistically significant differences at any time. Delayed cell migration was observed in all hDPSCs treated with Papacárie Duo and Cariesolut (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001). Phalloidin staining images showed a high confluence of cells in the presence of NATURAL CARE, similar to the control group. On the contrary, no cells were observed in Brix 3000 and Cariesolut at 2% and 0.1% concentrations. Papacárie Duo showed cells at all concentrations, but hDPSCs treated at 0.01% concentration exhibited better proliferation and spreading than those in the control group. Apoptosis essay showed that Brix 3000 at both 0.1% and 0.01% had a percentage of live cells higher than 99%, with 68.4% live cells at 2%, 3.69% early apoptotic cells, and 27.9% late apoptotic cells. Conversely, the rest of the materials showed an abundance of apoptotic cells, even at low concentrations. 0.1% and 0.01% of BRIX 3000 did not affect the ROS production levels, while 2% of BRIX 3000 counterpart very significantly increased the percentage of CM-H2DCFDA positive cells. Again, all concentrations of Cariesolut showed significantly higher levels of ROS production than those observed in control cells. Conclusion: Our results suggest that Brix 3000 would be the most suitable material for chemical caries removal, with Papacárie Duo and NATURAL CARE also being good options, and discourage the use of Cariesolut due to its low cytocompatibility on dental pulp stem cells.
