Literature DB >> 10483406

Cytotoxic effects of dental composites, adhesive substances, compomers and cements.

A Schedle1, A Franz, X Rausch-Fan, A Spittler, T Lucas, P Samorapoompichit, W Sperr, G Boltz-Nitulescu.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Although research interest in biocompatibility of dental materials has been increasing, findings are frequently controversial and non-harmonized experimental approaches often lead to the production of contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare the cytotoxic effects of six different light-cured dental composites, one compomer, one advanced glass-ionomer, two glass-ionomer cements, two zinc phosphate cements, one calcium hydroxide liner, one composite cement and one carboxylate cement with the same standardized cell-culture system. Two composites, one compomer and one advanced glass-ionomer were also tested in combination with the appropriate bonding substances and surface primers.
METHODS: Specimens were added to the cultures immediately after production or after preincubation for 1, 2 or 7 days or 6 weeks under cell-culture conditions. Specimens were incubated with L-929 fibroblasts for 72 h and cell numbers determined by flow cytometry.
RESULTS: All freshly prepared composite materials were cytotoxic. These effects diminished with increased preincubation times and were not significant after 7 days. Combinations of composites and bonding substances were still cytotoxic after preincubation for 7 days, but not after 6 weeks. Combinations of compomers and bonding substances demonstrated stronger toxicity than composites, although these effects were reduced earlier during preincubation. Glass-ionomer and phosphate cements showed similar effects to the composites with the exception of carboxylate cement, which demonstrated severe and persistent effects even after 6 weeks' preincubation. Together, our data provide evidence that all dental materials tested are cytotoxic immediately after production and that these effects are reduced after different preincubation periods in most cases. SIGNIFICANCE: Tested with a standardized cell-culture system, differences in toxicological potency between various commonly used dental materials were observed. Cytotoxicity data from standardized protocols should form the basis of screening the cytotoxic effects of new materials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 10483406     DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00018-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dent Mater        ISSN: 0109-5641            Impact factor:   5.304


  14 in total

1.  Mutans streptococci and lactobacilli in plaque on a leucite-reinforced dental ceramic and on a calcium aluminate cement.

Authors:  Katarina Konradsson; R Claesson; J W V van Dijken
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2006-04-28       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Characteristics of chitosan-modified glass ionomer cement and their effects on the adhesion and proliferation of human gingival fibroblasts: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Jia Zhou; Quanchen Xu; Chun Fan; Hao Ren; Shuo Xu; Fang Hu; Lei Wang; Kai Yang; Qiuxia Ji
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 3.896

3.  Evaluation of Cytotoxicity of Silorane and Methacrylate based Dental Composites using Human Gingival Fibroblasts.

Authors:  Prashanthi Sampath Madhyastha; Dilip G Naik; Ravindra Kotian; Divya Padma; N Srikant; Kumar M R Bhat
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-01-01

4.  A comparison of the in vitro cytotoxicity of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cements.

Authors:  Mediha Selimović-Dragaš; Amina Huseinbegović; Sedin Kobašlija; Sahza Hatibović-Kofman
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 3.363

5.  Influence of light-curing distance on degree of conversion and cytotoxicity of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives.

Authors:  Florian J Wegehaupt; Nancy Lunghi; Georgios N Belibasakis; Thomas Attin
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 2.757

6.  Cytotoxicity of Light-Cured Dental Materials according to Different Sample Preparation Methods.

Authors:  Myung-Jin Lee; Mi-Joo Kim; Jae-Sung Kwon; Sang-Bae Lee; Kwang-Mahn Kim
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 3.623

7.  Monomer Release from Resin Based Dental Materials Cured With LED and Halogen Lights.

Authors:  Asli Topaloglu Ak; A Riza Alpoz; Oguz Bayraktar; Fahinur Ertugrul
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2010-01

8.  Effects of current provisional restoration materials on the viability of fibroblasts.

Authors:  Mustafa Ulker; H Esra Ulker; Mustafa Zortuk; Mehmet Bulbul; Ali Riza Tuncdemir; M Selim Bilgin
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2009-04

9.  In Vitro Cytotoxicity Assessment of an Orthodontic Composite Containing Titanium-dioxide Nano-particles.

Authors:  Farzin Heravi; Mohammad Ramezani; Maryam Poosti; Mohsen Hosseini; Arezoo Shajiei; Farzaneh Ahrari
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2013-12-18

10.  Evaluation of the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of different universal adhesive systems.

Authors:  Derya Sürmelioğlu; Ceylan Hepokur; Sevim Atılan Yavuz; Uğur Aydın
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2021-01-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.