Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative study examines adverse effects of sodium fluoride varnishes in gingival fibroblasts, indicating significant variability in cytotoxic responses.
This study compared in vitro cytotoxicity-related effects of four commercially available 5% sodium fluoride (NaF) varnishes (Enamelast ® , Profluorid ® , Polimo ® , Proshield ® ) on human gingival fibroblast cells under standardized exposure conditions. Varnish-derived supernatants were prepared using a standardized extraction approach and applied to HGF-1 cells at six concentrations ranging from 0.0625% to 2% for 24 h. Cell viability, membrane integrity, and migration were assessed using MTT, LDH release, and wound-healing assays, respectively. Experiments were performed in three independent biological replicates with technical triplicates. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for concentration-response assays and one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test for migration analysis. All four varnishes showed concentration-dependent adverse effects on HGF-1 cells. Polimo ® showed the lowest IC₅₀ and the highest LDH release, indicating the least favorable in vitro profile among the tested materials. Enamelast ® showed the highest IC₅₀ and a comparatively milder response, while Proshield ® and Profluorid ® showed an intermediate profile. All varnishes significantly reduced cell migration compared with untreated control cells. The four tested 5% NaF varnishes showed different cytotoxicity-related response profiles in HGF-1 cells, with Polimo ® showing the strongest adverse response and Enamelast.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
GÖKÇE et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: