In vitro cytotoxicity of a remineralizing resin-based calcium phosphate cement.

Recently, a resin-based calcium phosphate cement (RCPC) has been reported as a remineralizing pulp-capping or lining cement. RCPC consists mainly of tetracalcium and dicalcium phosphates, ethoxylated bisphenol A dimethacrylate and pyromellitic glycerol dimethacrylate monomers and photo- and chemical initiators. OBJECTIVES: Here, the cytotoxic effects of RCPC were evaluated. The hypothesis was that RCPC induced only minor cytotoxic response in immortalized murine odontoblast and pulp cells, comparable to that produced by similar dimethacrylates due to unpolymerized dimethacrylate monomer present after curing. METHODS: Cytotoxicity was determined following the changes in cell succinate dehydrogenase activity after 24 h exposure to the cement components and after a 24 h recovery period. A fourfold range of concentrations was tested of the monomers, the eluate of cured RCPC leached in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium, and crushed cured cement in dimethyl sulfoxide. RESULTS: The monomers themselves had cytotoxicities similar to those reported for other dimethacrylates, although they are significantly less toxic than Bis-GMA. Differential cell sensitivity was demonstrated, with the pulp cells having greater sensitivity to the unpolymerized monomer than the odontoblast-like cells. The leached components have cytotoxicity similar to that of the free monomers. The crushed material demonstrated no apparent cytotoxicity at the dilutions tested. SIGNIFICANCE: These data demonstrate that RCPC has an in vitro cytotoxicity that is comparable to other materials containing dimethacrylate monomers and suggest that the material may be suitable for use in dental restorations. The data also indicate that the pulp cells appear more sensitive to dimethacrylates than the odontoblasts.     

Reduction of Immunosuppression for Transplant-Associated Skin Cancer: Rationale and Evidence of Efficacy

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant recipients may develop numerous or life-threatening skin cancers. In addition to aggressive standard treatment of skin cancer, reduction of immunosuppression has been considered an adjuvant therapeutic strategy, albeit without direct proof of efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To review the rationale for and evidence supporting the efficacy of reduction of immunosuppression for severe skin cancer in transplant recipients. METHODS: Review of the literature regarding direct and indirect evidence on reduction of immunosuppression for transplant-associated skin cancer. RESULTS: Although there are no randomized controlled trials of reduction of immunosuppression as a therapeutic intervention for transplant patients with skin cancer, multiple lines of evidence suggest that this strategy may be an effective adjuvant therapy. A randomized trial has demonstrated a lower incidence of skin cancer in transplant recipients after reduction of immunosuppression, albeit in a cohort not previously affected by skin cancer. Case series of reduction or cessation of immunosuppression demonstrate a lower incidence of skin cancer or improved outcomes of preexisting skin cancer. Lower overall immunosuppression is associated with a lower incidence of skin cancer. Multiple cancers affecting the skin have been shown to regress with reduction of immunosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction of immunosuppression may be an effective adjuvant therapeutic strategy when confronting severe transplant-associated skin cancer. The risks of reduction of immunosuppression must be better defined, and randomized trials of this strategy are necessary.