Effect of β-carotene patch application on gingival crevicular fluid volume after repeated periapical radiographic exposure

Faluthia Arini Puspitaningrum; Rurie Ratna Shantiningsih; Ryna Dwi Yanuaryska

doi:10.22146/majkedgiind.42485

Effect of β-carotene patch application on gingival crevicular fluid volume after repeated periapical radiographic exposure

https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.42485

Faluthia Arini Puspitaningrum⁽¹⁾, Rurie Ratna Shantiningsih^(2*), Ryna Dwi Yanuaryska⁽³⁾

(1) Study Program of Dentist, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
(2) Department of Dentomaxilofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
(3) Department of Dentomaxilofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

Free radicals generated during ionization process of X-rays can damage biological tissues. Radiation exposure to gingival sulcus area will damage endothelial cells and increase permeability of blood vessels under sulcular and junctional epithelium. That inflammation will increase gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) volume. Repeated periapical radiographs often occurs due to the unfulfillment of quality assurance and leads to an increase amount of radiation dose received by the patient. Previous studies have shown that β-carotene mucoadhesive gingival patch can penetrate mucous membrane and provide protection against radiation by reducing the number of gingival epithelial cells micronuclei. The aims of this study was to observe β-carotene mucoadhesive gingival patch effect in GCF volume from patient exposed to repeated periapical radiographs. We recruited 10 participants from patients who receive repeated periapical radiographs in instalation of dentomaxillofacial radiology, Prof Soedomo dental and oral hospital Faculty of Dentistry UGM. The teeth of the subjects are divided into control and treatment group. β-carotene mucoadhesive gingival patch was applied to treatment group. GCF was collected using an absorbing paper strip before and after exposure, then measured by
sliding caliper. Paired T-test showed significant differences (p<0.05) between GCF volume before and after radiographic exposure in each group. Independent T-test showed significant differences (p<0.05) of GCF volume between control and treatment group. Conclusion of this study is β-carotene mucoadhesive gingival patch significantly reduce GCF volume after repeated periapical radiographic exposure.

Keywords

β-carotene mucoadhesive gingival patch; GCF volume; repeated periapical radiography

Full Text:

PDF-2

References

1. Karjodkar FR. Textbook of dental and maxillofacial radiology 2nd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers; 2008. 36-37.

2. Whaites E, Drage N. Essentials of dental radiography and radiology 5th ed. Edinburgh:
Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2013. 10, 65, 68, 85-86, 217.

3. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation 7th ed. St. Louis:
Elsevier Mosby; 2014. 19, 32-33, 91.

4. Alberti WE, Richard G, Sagerman RH. Age-related macular degeneration: current
treatment concepts. Berlin: Springer; 2001. 80.

5. Reddy S. Essentials of clinical periodontology and periodontics. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers
Medical Publishers; 2008. 133-134.

6. Ekaputri S, Masulili SLC. Cairan sulkus gingiva sebagai indikator keadaan jaringan
periodontal. Majalah Kedokteran Gigi. 2010; 17(1): 81.

7. Minafra L, Bravata V. Cell and molecular response to iort treatment. Translational
Cancer Research. 2014; 3(1): 32.

8. Berkovitz BKB, Moxham BJ, Linden RWA, Sloan AJ. Master dentistry volume 3 oral biology: oral anatomy, histology, physiology and biochemistry. Edinburgh: Elsevier Ltd; 2011. 239.

9. Zuelkevin. Efek paparan radiografi panoramik terhadap volume cairan sulkus gingiva (CSG).
Skripsi. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi Universitas Gadjah Mada; 2015. 38.
Available from Repository UGM: http://etd.repository.ugm.ac.idindex.php?
mod=penelitian_detail&sub=PenelitianDetail&act= view&typ=html&buku_id=93461&obyek_id=4.

10. Ardakani FE, Dadsefat R. Investigating the cause for repeating periapical radiographies
in radiology department of school of dentistry and the effect of education on its reduction.
Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2010; 9(4): 337.

11. Jabbari N, Zeinali A, Leili R. Patient dose from radiographic rejects/repeats in radiology
centers of urmia university of medical sciences. Health. 2012; 4(2): 98.

12. Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ. Radiobiology for the radiologist 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. 11-12, 303.

13. Iannucci JM, Howerton LJ. Dental radiography principles and technique. St. Louis: Elsevier
Saunders; 2012. 3, 32, 35, 45.

14. Margalit DN, Kasperzyk JL, Martin NE, Sesso HD, Gaziano MJ, Ma J, Stampfer MJ, Mucci LA.
Beta-carotene antioxidant use during radiation therapy and prostate cancer outcome in the
physicians’ health study. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2012; 83(1): 29.

15. Challem J, Moneysmith M. User’s guide to carotenoids and flavonoids 16th ed. New
Jersey: Basic Health Publication; 2012.

16. Shantiningsih RR, Diba SF. Efek aplikasi patch gingiva mukoadesif β-carotene akibat paparan radiografi panoramik. Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia. 2015; 1(2): 186-192.

17. Fajrian AF. Pengaruh pemberian patch gingiva mukoadhesif β-carotene terhadap jumlah
mikronukleus akibat paparan radiografi periapikal berulang (kajian pasien di rsgm prof. soedomo), Skripsi, Yogyakarta: Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi Universitas Gadjah Mada;
2015. 30. Available from Repository UGM: http://etd.repository.ugm.ac.id/index.php?
mod=penelitian_detail&sub=PenelitianDetail&act=view&typ=html&buku_id=86843&obyek_id=4.

18. Okano T, Sur J. Radiation dose and protection in dentistry. Japanese Dental Science Review. 2010; 46: 115.

19. Little MP, Wakeford R, Gonzales AB. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates
of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology. 2009;
251(1): 6.

20. Haghnegahdar A, Bronoosh P, Taheri MM, Farjood A. Common intra oral radiographic
errors made by dental students. Galen Medical Journal. 2013; 2(2): 45-47.

21. Bajaj K, Rathee P, Jain P, Panwar VR. Comparison of the reliability of anatomic landmarks based on pa cephalometric radiographs and 3d ct scans in patients with facial asymmetry. World Journal of Dentistry. 2011; 4(3): 213-223.

22. Jenkins WMM, Brocklebank LM, Winning SM, Wylupek M, Donaldson A, Strang RM. a
comparison of two radiographic assessment protocols for patients with periodontal disease.
British Dental Journal. 2005; 198(9): 568.

23. Hong CW, Kim YM, Pyo H, Lee JH, Kim S, Lee S, Noh JM. Involvement of inducible nitric
oxide synthase in radiation-induced vascular endothelial damage. Journal of Radiation Research. 2013; 54(6): 1036-1042.

24. Okunieff P, Swarts S, Keng P, Sun W, Wang W, Kim J, Yang S, Zhang H, Liu C, Williams
JP, Huser AK, Zhang L. Antioxidants reduce consequences of radiation exposure.
Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 2008; 614: 165.

25. Stargrove MB, Treasure J, McKee DL. Herb, nutrient, and drug interactions: clinical
implications and therapeutic strategies. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2008. 75.

26. Edge R, Truscott TG. Singlet oxygen and free radical reactions of retinoids and carotenoids-a review. Antioxidants. 2018; 7(1): 5.

27. Bai S, Lee S, Na H, Ha K, Han J, Lee H, Kwon Y, Chung C, Kim Y. β-Carotene inhibits inflammatory gene expression in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated macrophages by suppresing redox-based nf-κb activation. Experimental and Molecular Medicine. 2005; 37(4): 325.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.42485