Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 Mar 8;13(3):195.
doi: 10.3390/toxics13030195.

The Evolution of In Vitro Toxicity Assessment Methods for Oral Cavity Tissues-From 2D Cell Cultures to Organ-on-a-Chip

Affiliations
Review

The Evolution of In Vitro Toxicity Assessment Methods for Oral Cavity Tissues-From 2D Cell Cultures to Organ-on-a-Chip

Alexandra Jităreanu et al. Toxics. .

Abstract

Since the oral cavity comes into contact with several xenobiotics (dental materials, oral hygiene formulations, drugs, or tobacco products), it is one major site for toxicity manifestation. Multiple parameters are assessed during toxicity testing (cell viability and proliferation, apoptosis, morphological changes, genotoxicity, oxidative stress, and inflammatory response). Due to the complexity of the oral cavity environment, researchers have made great efforts to design better in vitro models that mimic natural human anatomic and functional features. The present review describes the in vitro methods currently used to investigate the toxic potential of various agents on oral cavity tissues and their evolution from simple 2D cell culture systems to complex organ-a-chip designs.

Keywords: 3D oral tissue models; cytotoxicity; genotoxicity; oxidative stress; tooth-on-a-chip.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cell viability assays.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cell viability assays based on tetrazolium salt reduction.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Apoptosis assays.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Genotoxicity mechanisms.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Oxidative status assessment. Abbreviations: CAT (catalase); DCF (2′,7′-dichlorofluorescein); DCFH-DA (dichloro-dihydro-fluorescein diacetate); DNPH (2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine); GPx (glutathione peroxidase family); GR (glutathione reductase); GSH (glutathione); MDA (malondialdehyde); SOD (superoxide dismutase); TBA (thiobarbituric acid); 8OHdG (8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine); and 8-oxo-Gua (8-oxoguanine).

Similar articles

References

    1. Poh W.T., Stanslas J. The new paradigm in animal testing—“3Rs alternatives”. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2024;153:105705. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2024.105705. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices Part 5: Tests for in Vitro Cytotoxicity. International Organization for Standardization; Geneva, Switzerland: 2009.
    1. Srivastava G.K., Alonso-Alonso M.L., Fernandez-Bueno I., Garcia-Gutierrez M.T., Rull F., Medina J., Coco R.M., Pastor J.C. Comparison between direct contact and extract exposure methods for PFO cytotoxicity evaluation. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:1425. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-19428-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Liu X., Rodeheaver D.P., White J.C., Wright A.M., Walker L.M., Zhang F., Shannon S. A comparison of in vitro cytotoxicity assays in medical device regulatory studies. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2018;97:24–32. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.06.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gruber S., Nickel A. Toxic or not toxic? The specifications of the standard ISO 10993-5 are not explicit enough to yield comparable results in the cytotoxicity assessment of an identical medical device. Front. Med. Technol. 2023;5:1195529. doi: 10.3389/fmedt.2023.1195529. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources