Cytogenetic damage induced by mouthrinses formulations in vivo and in vitro.

Viviane Carlin, Mariza A Matsumoto, Patricia P Saraiva, André Artioli, Celina T F Oshima, Daniel Araki Ribeiro
Author Information
  1. Viviane Carlin: Departamento de Patologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil.

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to comparatively evaluate DNA damage and cellular death in cells exposed to various commercially available mouthrinses: Listerine Cepacol, Plax alcohol free, Periogard, and Plax Whitening. A total of 75 volunteers were included in the search distributed into five groups containing 15 people each for in vivo study. Exfoliated buccal mucosa cells were collected immediately before mouthrinse exposure and after 2 weeks. Furthermore, blood samples were obtained from three healthy donors for in vitro study. The micronucleus test was used to evaluate mutagenicity and cytotoxicity in vivo. The single-cell gel (comet) assay was used to determine DNA damage in vitro. After 2 weeks exposure, Periogard showed 1.8% of micronucleated cells with significant statistical differences (p < 0.05) compared to before exposure (0.27%). Plax Whitening presented high tail moment value (4.5) when compared to negative control (0.6). The addition of all mouthrinses to cells incubated with methyl methanesulfonate did not alter the number of strand breaks in the genetic material. Listerine was able to reduce genetic damage induced by hydrogen peroxide because a decrease of tail moment was noticed. The results of the present study suggest that Periogard and Plax Whitening can induce genetic damage, whereas Listerine is an antioxidant agent. Since DNA damage is considered to be prime mechanism during chemical carcinogenesis, these data may be relevant in risk assessment for protecting human health and preventing carcinogenesis.

References

  1. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2010 Jul;39(5):295-9 [PMID: 20587654]
  2. J Dent. 2010 Jun;38 Suppl 1:S16-20 [PMID: 20621239]
  3. Science. 1999 Dec 3;286(5446):1897-905 [PMID: 10583946]
  4. Am J Dent. 1993 Dec;6(6):277-9 [PMID: 7880474]
  5. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003 Jun;134(6):699-704 [PMID: 12839405]
  6. Horm Behav. 2010 Feb;57(2):216-21 [PMID: 19958772]
  7. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Jul 11;33(12):3799-811 [PMID: 16009812]
  8. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010 Jul;107(1):598-602 [PMID: 20148859]
  9. Mutat Res. 2003 Nov;544(2-3):115-27 [PMID: 14644314]
  10. Mutat Res. 2003 Nov;544(2-3):243-54 [PMID: 14644326]
  11. Int J Cancer. 1992 Jan 21;50(2):172-6 [PMID: 1730509]
  12. Mutat Res. 1993 Jul;288(1):47-63 [PMID: 7686265]
  13. Pediatr Radiol. 2007 Jun;37(6):561-5 [PMID: 17453188]
  14. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Oct;84(4):946-7; author reply 947-8 [PMID: 17023726]
  15. Food Chem Toxicol. 2002 Feb-Mar;40(2-3):193-236 [PMID: 11893398]
  16. Clin Oral Investig. 2002 Sep;6(3):150-4 [PMID: 12271347]
  17. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2010 Jul;29(7):593-9 [PMID: 20053703]
  18. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2009 Jan 15;234(2):256-65 [PMID: 19027770]
  19. Caries Res. 2007;41(3):239-43 [PMID: 17426407]
  20. J Biol Chem. 2004 Apr 9;279(15):14587-94 [PMID: 14688260]
  21. Toxicol In Vitro. 2001 Aug-Oct;15(4-5):271-6 [PMID: 11566548]
  22. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006 Aug;102(2):e32-6 [PMID: 16876042]
  23. J Bacteriol. 1983 Feb;153(2):1079-82 [PMID: 6337115]
  24. J Periodontal Res. 2004 Oct;39(5):358-61 [PMID: 15324357]
  25. Methods Enzymol. 1999;300:297-313 [PMID: 9919532]
  26. J Clin Periodontol. 2002 May;29(5):462-7 [PMID: 12060430]
  27. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2007 May;26(5):435-40 [PMID: 17623768]
  28. Mutagenesis. 1987 Jan;2(1):11-7 [PMID: 3331688]
  29. Mutat Res. 2003 Sep 9;540(1):43-55 [PMID: 12972057]
  30. Mutat Res. 2004 Jul 13;551(1-2):127-34 [PMID: 15225587]
  31. Mutat Res. 1989 Jul;219(4):193-208 [PMID: 2671707]
  32. Carcinogenesis. 1995 Oct;16(10):2395-400 [PMID: 7586141]
  33. Rev Environ Health. 1997 Jul-Sep;12(3):179-90 [PMID: 9406289]
  34. Mutat Res. 2000 Sep 20;469(2):223-31 [PMID: 10984683]
  35. Steroids. 2010 Dec;75(12):952-5 [PMID: 20566358]
  36. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2000;35(3):206-21 [PMID: 10737956]
  37. Mutagenesis. 2003 Jan;18(1):45-51 [PMID: 12473734]
  38. Oral Dis. 2011 Mar;17(2):180-6 [PMID: 20659260]

MeSH Term

Adult
Cell Death
Cetylpyridinium
Chlorhexidine
Comet Assay
DNA Damage
Ethanol
Female
Humans
Lymphocytes
Male
Micronucleus Tests
Mouth Mucosa
Mouthwashes
Plant Oils
Statistics, Nonparametric
Young Adult

Chemicals

Mouthwashes
Plant Oils
Ethanol
Cetylpyridinium
chlorhexidine gluconate
Chlorhexidine

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0damagestudycellsPlaxDNAListerinePeriogardWhiteningvivoexposurevitro0geneticpresentevaluate2weeksusedcomparedtailmomentmouthrinsesinducedcarcinogenesisaimcomparativelycellulardeathexposedvariouscommerciallyavailablemouthrinses:Cepacolalcoholfreetotal75volunteersincludedsearchdistributedfivegroupscontaining15peopleExfoliatedbuccalmucosacollectedimmediatelymouthrinseFurthermorebloodsamplesobtainedthreehealthydonorsmicronucleustestmutagenicitycytotoxicitysingle-cellgelcometassaydetermineshowed18%micronucleatedsignificantstatisticaldifferencesp<0527%presentedhighvalue45negativecontrol6additionincubatedmethylmethanesulfonatealternumberstrandbreaksmaterialablereducehydrogenperoxidedecreasenoticedresultssuggestcaninducewhereasantioxidantagentSinceconsideredprimemechanismchemicaldatamayrelevantriskassessmentprotectinghumanhealthpreventingCytogeneticformulations

Similar Articles

Cited By