Comparison of primary human gingival fibroblasts from an older and a young donor on the evaluation of cytotoxicity of denture adhesives

Denture adhesives (DA) improve the retention and stability of ill-fitting dentures, especially for older adults. These materials should be biocompatible, i.e., they cannot cause undesired biological responses and be non-cytotoxic to oral tissues. However, in vitro testing of DA biocompatibility employing primary cell culture may possibly be affected by other factors, such as the donor age. Objective To compare the cytotoxicity of three different denture adhesives when assessed in primary gingival fibroblasts from a young donor or from an older donor, as well as the release of the basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), and the inflammatory response marker interleukin-6 (IL-6). Material and Methods Gingival fibroblasts isolated from a 30- and a 62-year-old donor were assayed for proliferation (1-7 days) and sensitivity to latex (positive control). Fibroblasts were indirectly exposed to Corega Ultra (cream), Corega powder and Fixodent Original for a 24 h period and assayed by XTT and Crystal Violet tests. The release of IL-6 and bFGF by exposed cells was determined by ELISA. Results While cells from the young donor presented higher cell growth after 7 days, the sensitivity to increasing concentrations of latex extracts was very similar between young and older cells. Both XTT and CVDE detected no difference between the DA and the control group. All materials induced higher levels of IL-6 and bFGF compared to control. Cells from the older donor exposed to Corega Ultra released lower levels of cytokine and growth factor. Conclusions All materials were considered non-cytotoxic, but affected cytokine and growth factor release. The biological differences found between fibroblasts from both donors could be due to individual or age-related factors. The authors suggest the use of cells from older donors on studies of dental products aimed at older patients, to better simulate their physiological response

Comparison of primary human gingival fibroblasts from an older and a young donor on the evaluation of cytotoxicity of denture adhesives

<div><p>Abstract Denture adhesives (DA) improve the retention and stability of ill-fitting dentures, especially for older adults. These materials should be biocompatible, i.e., they cannot cause undesired biological responses and be non-cytotoxic to oral tissues. However, in vitro testing of DA biocompatibility employing primary cell culture may possibly be affected by other factors, such as the donor age. Objective To compare the cytotoxicity of three different denture adhesives when assessed in primary gingival fibroblasts from a young donor or from an older donor, as well as the release of the basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), and the inflammatory response marker interleukin-6 (IL-6). Material and Methods Gingival fibroblasts isolated from a 30- and a 62-year-old donor were assayed for proliferation (1-7 days) and sensitivity to latex (positive control). Fibroblasts were indirectly exposed to Corega Ultra (cream), Corega powder and Fixodent Original for a 24 h period and assayed by XTT and Crystal Violet tests. The release of IL-6 and bFGF by exposed cells was determined by ELISA. Results While cells from the young donor presented higher cell growth after 7 days, the sensitivity to increasing concentrations of latex extracts was very similar between young and older cells. Both XTT and CVDE detected no difference between the DA and the control group. All materials induced higher levels of IL-6 and bFGF compared to control. Cells from the older donor exposed to Corega Ultra released lower levels of cytokine and growth factor. Conclusions All materials were considered non-cytotoxic, but affected cytokine and growth factor release. The biological differences found between fibroblasts from both donors could be due to individual or age-related factors. The authors suggest the use of cells from older donors on studies of dental products aimed at older patients, to better simulate their physiological response.</p></div

Delayed colorectal cancer care during covid-19 pandemic (decor-19). Global perspective from an international survey

Background The widespread nature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been unprecedented. We sought to analyze its global impact with a survey on colorectal cancer (CRC) care during the pandemic. Methods The impact of COVID-19 on preoperative assessment, elective surgery, and postoperative management of CRC patients was explored by a 35-item survey, which was distributed worldwide to members of surgical societies with an interest in CRC care. Respondents were divided into two comparator groups: 1) ‘delay’ group: CRC care affected by the pandemic; 2) ‘no delay’ group: unaltered CRC practice. Results A total of 1,051 respondents from 84 countries completed the survey. No substantial differences in demographics were found between the ‘delay’ (745, 70.9%) and ‘no delay’ (306, 29.1%) groups. Suspension of multidisciplinary team meetings, staff members quarantined or relocated to COVID-19 units, units fully dedicated to COVID-19 care, personal protective equipment not readily available were factors significantly associated to delays in endoscopy, radiology, surgery, histopathology and prolonged chemoradiation therapy-to-surgery intervals. In the ‘delay’ group, 48.9% of respondents reported a change in the initial surgical plan and 26.3% reported a shift from elective to urgent operations. Recovery of CRC care was associated with the status of the outbreak. Practicing in COVID-free units, no change in operative slots and staff members not relocated to COVID-19 units were statistically associated with unaltered CRC care in the ‘no delay’ group, while the geographical distribution was not. Conclusions Global changes in diagnostic and therapeutic CRC practices were evident. Changes were associated with differences in health-care delivery systems, hospital’s preparedness, resources availability, and local COVID-19 prevalence rather than geographical factors. Strategic planning is required to optimize CRC care