不同出牙口服凝胶的细胞毒性和抗真菌作用:一项体外研究。

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Aslı Aşık, Ece Bayır, Sibel Acar, Ceren Sağlam, Dilşah Çoğulu, Ataç Uzel
{"title":"不同出牙口服凝胶的细胞毒性和抗真菌作用:一项体外研究。","authors":"Aslı Aşık, Ece Bayır, Sibel Acar, Ceren Sağlam, Dilşah Çoğulu, Ataç Uzel","doi":"10.1186/s13005-025-00524-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effects of various teething oral gels, containing lidocaine, hyaluronic acid, and herbal-based ingredients, on cell viability and to compare the antifungal properties.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The effect of the six different teething oral gels (Gengigel Teething, Orajel Baby, Calgel, Hyland's Baby Organic Soothing Gel, Buccotherm Teething Gel and Aftamed Teething) on cell viability was evaluated through the MTT (3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5 diphenyl tetrazolium bromide) assay on L-929 mouse fibroblast cells. The antifungal activity of teething oral gels against Candida albicans ATCC 90,028, C. tropicalis ATCC 750, C. glabrata ATCC 2001, C. parapsilosis ATCC 22,019, and C. krusei ATCC 6258 was assessed using the broth dilution method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cell viability analysis revealed that Aftamed Teething exhibited the highest level of cytotoxicity among the tested teething oral gel products, whereas Buccotherm Teething Gel demonstrated the lowest cytotoxicity. The teething oral gels can be ordered based on their respective cytotoxicity profiles: Aftamed Teething (IC<sub>50</sub> 4.62 mg/ml) > Calgel (IC<sub>50</sub> 33.40 mg/ml) > Gengigel Teething (IC<sub>50</sub> 122.85 mg/ml) > Orajel Baby (IC<sub>50</sub> 137.13 mg/ml) > Hyland's Baby Organic Soothing Gel (IC<sub>50</sub> 229.20 mg/ml) > Buccotherm Teething Gel (IC<sub>50</sub> 284.38 mg/ml) (p < 0.05). The results indicate that Buccotherm Teething Gel, Hyland's Baby Organic Soothing Gel and Orajel Baby did not exhibit any antifungal activity against C. albicans, while Gengigel Teething and Aftamed Teething demonstrated marginal effects at the 100 mg/ml concentration threshold. The Calgel exhibited the highest efficacy against C. albicans, with a minimum inhibitory concentration of 12.5 mg/ml (p < 0.05). From non-albicans Candida species, it was ascertained that Gengigel exhibited a modest antifungal effect on C. tropicalis and C. parapsilosis, while Calgel demonstrated a modest antifungal effect on C. glabrata. Additionally, Calgel demonstrates antifungal activity against C.tropicalis and C.parapsilosis, with a minimum inhibitory concentration of 25 mg/ml (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Teething oral gels containing lidocaine, hyaluronic acid, and herbal formulations demonstrated varying degrees of cytotoxicity and antifungal efficacy. Herbal-based teething oral gels may be a more suitable option for young children compared to products containing lidocaine or hyaluronic acids, as they exhibit reduced cytotoxicity and enhanced biocompatibility. Lidocaine-containing gel may be preferred for opportunistic fungal infections, considering their high cytotoxic properties, solely to leverage their antifungal capabilities on different species.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Lidocaine-containing teething oral gel has demonstrated potent antifungal properties on both C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species, but the high cytotoxic effect revealed by the study, together with reported adverse effects, precludes its recommendation for use in infants.</p>","PeriodicalId":12994,"journal":{"name":"Head & Face Medicine","volume":"21 1","pages":"47"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cytotoxic and antifungal effects of different teething oral gels: an in-vitro study.\",\"authors\":\"Aslı Aşık, Ece Bayır, Sibel Acar, Ceren Sağlam, Dilşah Çoğulu, Ataç Uzel\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13005-025-00524-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the effects of various teething oral gels, containing lidocaine, hyaluronic acid, and herbal-based ingredients, on cell viability and to compare the antifungal properties.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The effect of the six different teething oral gels (Gengigel Teething, Orajel Baby, Calgel, Hyland's Baby Organic Soothing Gel, Buccotherm Teething Gel and Aftamed Teething) on cell viability was evaluated through the MTT (3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5 diphenyl tetrazolium bromide) assay on L-929 mouse fibroblast cells. The antifungal activity of teething oral gels against Candida albicans ATCC 90,028, C. tropicalis ATCC 750, C. glabrata ATCC 2001, C. parapsilosis ATCC 22,019, and C. krusei ATCC 6258 was assessed using the broth dilution method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cell viability analysis revealed that Aftamed Teething exhibited the highest level of cytotoxicity among the tested teething oral gel products, whereas Buccotherm Teething Gel demonstrated the lowest cytotoxicity. The teething oral gels can be ordered based on their respective cytotoxicity profiles: Aftamed Teething (IC<sub>50</sub> 4.62 mg/ml) > Calgel (IC<sub>50</sub> 33.40 mg/ml) > Gengigel Teething (IC<sub>50</sub> 122.85 mg/ml) > Orajel Baby (IC<sub>50</sub> 137.13 mg/ml) > Hyland's Baby Organic Soothing Gel (IC<sub>50</sub> 229.20 mg/ml) > Buccotherm Teething Gel (IC<sub>50</sub> 284.38 mg/ml) (p < 0.05). The results indicate that Buccotherm Teething Gel, Hyland's Baby Organic Soothing Gel and Orajel Baby did not exhibit any antifungal activity against C. albicans, while Gengigel Teething and Aftamed Teething demonstrated marginal effects at the 100 mg/ml concentration threshold. The Calgel exhibited the highest efficacy against C. albicans, with a minimum inhibitory concentration of 12.5 mg/ml (p < 0.05). From non-albicans Candida species, it was ascertained that Gengigel exhibited a modest antifungal effect on C. tropicalis and C. parapsilosis, while Calgel demonstrated a modest antifungal effect on C. glabrata. Additionally, Calgel demonstrates antifungal activity against C.tropicalis and C.parapsilosis, with a minimum inhibitory concentration of 25 mg/ml (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Teething oral gels containing lidocaine, hyaluronic acid, and herbal formulations demonstrated varying degrees of cytotoxicity and antifungal efficacy. Herbal-based teething oral gels may be a more suitable option for young children compared to products containing lidocaine or hyaluronic acids, as they exhibit reduced cytotoxicity and enhanced biocompatibility. Lidocaine-containing gel may be preferred for opportunistic fungal infections, considering their high cytotoxic properties, solely to leverage their antifungal capabilities on different species.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Lidocaine-containing teething oral gel has demonstrated potent antifungal properties on both C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species, but the high cytotoxic effect revealed by the study, together with reported adverse effects, precludes its recommendation for use in infants.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12994,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Head & Face Medicine\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Head & Face Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-025-00524-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Head & Face Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-025-00524-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究不同含利多卡因、透明质酸和草药成分的出牙口腔凝胶对细胞活力的影响,并比较其抗真菌性能。材料与方法:采用MTT(3-[4,5-二甲基噻唑-2-基]-2,5二苯基溴化四氮唑)法测定6种不同出牙口腔凝胶(Gengigel teething, Orajel Baby, Calgel, Hyland's婴儿有机舒缓凝胶,bucotherm teeth Gel和aftamamed teething)对L-929小鼠成纤维细胞活力的影响。采用肉汤稀释法测定出牙口腔凝胶对白色念珠菌ATCC 9028、热带念珠菌ATCC 750、光秃念珠菌ATCC 2001、拟裂念珠菌ATCC 22019和克鲁塞念珠菌ATCC 6258的抑菌活性。结果:细胞活力分析显示,aftame teeth口腔凝胶产品的细胞毒性最高,而Buccotherm teeth凝胶的细胞毒性最低。出牙口服凝胶可根据其各自的细胞毒性特征进行排序:Aftamed teething (IC50 4.62 mg/ml) > Calgel (IC50 33.40 mg/ml) > Gengigel teething (IC50 122.85 mg/ml) > Orajel Baby (IC50 137.13 mg/ml) > Hyland's婴儿有机舒缓凝胶(IC50 229.20 mg/ml) > Buccotherm出牙口服凝胶(IC50 284.38 mg/ml) (p结论:含利多卡因、透明质酸和草药配方的出牙口服凝胶显示出不同程度的细胞毒性和抗真菌效果。与含有利多卡因或透明质酸的产品相比,草药口腔出牙凝胶可能是幼儿更合适的选择,因为它们具有降低细胞毒性和增强生物相容性的特性。考虑到其高细胞毒性,含利多卡因凝胶可能更适合于机会性真菌感染,仅仅是为了利用它们对不同物种的抗真菌能力。临床相关性:含利多卡因的出牙口服凝胶对白色念珠菌和非白色念珠菌都有有效的抗真菌特性,但研究显示的高细胞毒作用以及报道的不良反应,使其不适合用于婴儿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Cytotoxic and antifungal effects of different teething oral gels: an in-vitro study.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of various teething oral gels, containing lidocaine, hyaluronic acid, and herbal-based ingredients, on cell viability and to compare the antifungal properties.

Materials and methods: The effect of the six different teething oral gels (Gengigel Teething, Orajel Baby, Calgel, Hyland's Baby Organic Soothing Gel, Buccotherm Teething Gel and Aftamed Teething) on cell viability was evaluated through the MTT (3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5 diphenyl tetrazolium bromide) assay on L-929 mouse fibroblast cells. The antifungal activity of teething oral gels against Candida albicans ATCC 90,028, C. tropicalis ATCC 750, C. glabrata ATCC 2001, C. parapsilosis ATCC 22,019, and C. krusei ATCC 6258 was assessed using the broth dilution method.

Results: The cell viability analysis revealed that Aftamed Teething exhibited the highest level of cytotoxicity among the tested teething oral gel products, whereas Buccotherm Teething Gel demonstrated the lowest cytotoxicity. The teething oral gels can be ordered based on their respective cytotoxicity profiles: Aftamed Teething (IC50 4.62 mg/ml) > Calgel (IC50 33.40 mg/ml) > Gengigel Teething (IC50 122.85 mg/ml) > Orajel Baby (IC50 137.13 mg/ml) > Hyland's Baby Organic Soothing Gel (IC50 229.20 mg/ml) > Buccotherm Teething Gel (IC50 284.38 mg/ml) (p < 0.05). The results indicate that Buccotherm Teething Gel, Hyland's Baby Organic Soothing Gel and Orajel Baby did not exhibit any antifungal activity against C. albicans, while Gengigel Teething and Aftamed Teething demonstrated marginal effects at the 100 mg/ml concentration threshold. The Calgel exhibited the highest efficacy against C. albicans, with a minimum inhibitory concentration of 12.5 mg/ml (p < 0.05). From non-albicans Candida species, it was ascertained that Gengigel exhibited a modest antifungal effect on C. tropicalis and C. parapsilosis, while Calgel demonstrated a modest antifungal effect on C. glabrata. Additionally, Calgel demonstrates antifungal activity against C.tropicalis and C.parapsilosis, with a minimum inhibitory concentration of 25 mg/ml (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: Teething oral gels containing lidocaine, hyaluronic acid, and herbal formulations demonstrated varying degrees of cytotoxicity and antifungal efficacy. Herbal-based teething oral gels may be a more suitable option for young children compared to products containing lidocaine or hyaluronic acids, as they exhibit reduced cytotoxicity and enhanced biocompatibility. Lidocaine-containing gel may be preferred for opportunistic fungal infections, considering their high cytotoxic properties, solely to leverage their antifungal capabilities on different species.

Clinical relevance: Lidocaine-containing teething oral gel has demonstrated potent antifungal properties on both C. albicans and non-albicans Candida species, but the high cytotoxic effect revealed by the study, together with reported adverse effects, precludes its recommendation for use in infants.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Head & Face Medicine
Head & Face Medicine DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
32
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Head & Face Medicine is a multidisciplinary open access journal that publishes basic and clinical research concerning all aspects of cranial, facial and oral conditions. The journal covers all aspects of cranial, facial and oral diseases and their management. It has been designed as a multidisciplinary journal for clinicians and researchers involved in the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects of diseases which affect the human head and face. The journal is wide-ranging, covering the development, aetiology, epidemiology and therapy of head and face diseases to the basic science that underlies these diseases. Management of head and face diseases includes all aspects of surgical and non-surgical treatments including psychopharmacological therapies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信