AIM: To evaluate the cytotoxic effects of nano-hydroxyapatite-silica incorporated glass ionomer cement (HA-SiO2-GIC) on human Dental Pulp Stem Cells (DPSC) and compare it with conventional GIC and resin modified GIC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Material extracts of Fuji IX, Fuji II LC and HA-SiO2-GIC were prepared into seven serial concentrations and applied to 96-well-plates seeded with DPSC. The 96-well-plates were incubated for 24 and 72 hours. The morphology of DPSC was observed under the inverted phase contrast microscope, and the cell viability was determined using MTT assay at both time intervals. Kruskal-Wallis test was performed for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: At maximum concentration, DPSC appeared fewer in number, but the normal spindle morphology was maintained in all groups except for Fuji II LC. At lower concentrations, DPSC appeared normal and more confluent in all groups. The cytotoxic effects of all groups were dose dependent. Fuji IX demonstrated the lowest cytotoxicity, followed by HA-SiO2-GIC. Fuji II LC demonstrated the highest cytotoxicity. The difference was significant between all groups at 200 mg/ml concentration (p<0.05). At concentration <100 mg/ml, cytotoxicity of HA-SiO2-GIC was comparable to that of Fuji IX and lower than that of Fuji II LC.
CONCLUSION: HA-SiO2-GIC showed a favourable cytotoxicity response and thus holds promise as a future potential restorative material in clinical dentistry.
METHODS: In this economic evaluation study, 22 primary healthcare centers were randomly selected in Malaysia between December 2019 and July 2020. The baseline immunization schedule includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses), whereas the alternative scheme includes switching from Pentaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (three doses) to Hexaxim® (four doses) and hepatitis B (one dose) administered at birth. Direct medical costs were extracted using a costing questionnaire and an observational time and motion chart. Direct non-medical (cost for transportation) and indirect costs (loss of productivity) were derived from parents'/caregivers' questionnaire. Also, HCPs' and parent's/caregivers' perceptions were investigated using structured questionnaires.
RESULTS: The cost per dose of Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B vs. Hexaxim® for the baseline scheme was Malaysian ringgit (RM) 31.90 (7.7 United States dollar [USD]) vs. 17.10 (4.1 USD) for direct medical cost, RM 54.40 (13.1 USD) vs. RM 27.20 (6.6 USD) for direct non-medical cost, RM 221.33 (53.3 USD) vs. RM 110.66 (26.7 USD) for indirect cost, and RM 307.63 (74.2 USD) vs. RM 155.00 (37.4 USD) for societal (total) cost. A similar trend was observed for the alternative scheme. Compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B, total cost savings per dose of Hexaxim® were RM 137.20 (33.1 USD) and RM 104.70 (25.2 USD) in the baseline and alternative scheme, respectively. Eighty-four percent of physicians and 95% of nurses supported the use of Hexaxim® in the NIP. The majority of parents/caregivers had a positive perception regarding Hexaxim® vaccine in various aspects.
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of Hexaxim® within Malaysian NIP is highly recommended because the use of Hexaxim® has demonstrated substantial direct and indirect cost savings for healthcare providers and parents/caregivers with a high percentage of positive perceptions, compared with Pentaxim® plus hepatitis B.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.