BACKGROUND: Bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (bis-GMA)-based dental composite restorations may release bisphenol A (BPA). The authors assessed changes in urinary BPA concentrations over a 6-month follow-up period in children and adolescents who received bis-GMA-based restorations. METHODS: The authors collected data from 91 study participants aged 3 to 17 years who needed composite restorations. Participants provided urine samples and information on BPA-related exposures before and at approximately 1 day, 14 days, and 6 months after treatment. The authors used multivariable linear regression models to test associations between the number of surface restorations placed and the changes in urinary BPA concentrations. RESULTS: Participants had a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 1.4 (1.0) for surfaces restored with composite at the first treatment visit and 2.3 (1.6) for surfaces restored during the entire study period. Mean (SD) change in urinary BPA concentrations between pretreatment and day 1 was 1.71 (9.94) nanograms per milliliter overall and 0.87 (5.98) after excluding 1 participant who had 8 surfaces restored at the visit. Overall, the authors observed an association between a greater number of composite surface restorations placed and higher urinary BPA concentrations in the 1-day sample (posterior-occlusal exponentiated coefficients [e(β)] = 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.83; P < .001), but the association was attenuated after the authors restricted the sample to the 88 participants who had up to 4 restorations (e(β) = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.86-1.64), and they did not observe any association using 14-day (e(β) = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.18) or 6-month (e(β) = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.04) samples. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of bis-GMA-based restorations in children and adolescents may produce transient increases in urinary BPA concentrations that are no longer detectable in urine samples taken approximately 14 days or 6 months after treatment. After placement of a few restorations, increases in urinary BPA concentrations may not be detectable, owing to a high level of variation in background BPA exposure. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: These results suggest that leaching of BPA from newly placed composite restorations ceases to be detectable in urine within 2 weeks after restoration placement. The potential human health impact of such short-term exposure remains uncertain.
BACKGROUND:Bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (bis-GMA)-based dental composite restorations may release bisphenol A (BPA). The authors assessed changes in urinary BPA concentrations over a 6-month follow-up period in children and adolescents who received bis-GMA-based restorations. METHODS: The authors collected data from 91 study participants aged 3 to 17 years who needed composite restorations. Participants provided urine samples and information on BPA-related exposures before and at approximately 1 day, 14 days, and 6 months after treatment. The authors used multivariable linear regression models to test associations between the number of surface restorations placed and the changes in urinary BPA concentrations. RESULTS:Participants had a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 1.4 (1.0) for surfaces restored with composite at the first treatment visit and 2.3 (1.6) for surfaces restored during the entire study period. Mean (SD) change in urinary BPA concentrations between pretreatment and day 1 was 1.71 (9.94) nanograms per milliliter overall and 0.87 (5.98) after excluding 1 participant who had 8 surfaces restored at the visit. Overall, the authors observed an association between a greater number of composite surface restorations placed and higher urinary BPA concentrations in the 1-day sample (posterior-occlusal exponentiated coefficients [e(β)] = 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.83; P < .001), but the association was attenuated after the authors restricted the sample to the 88 participants who had up to 4 restorations (e(β) = 1.19; 95% CI, 0.86-1.64), and they did not observe any association using 14-day (e(β) = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.18) or 6-month (e(β) = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74-1.04) samples. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of bis-GMA-based restorations in children and adolescents may produce transient increases in urinary BPA concentrations that are no longer detectable in urine samples taken approximately 14 days or 6 months after treatment. After placement of a few restorations, increases in urinary BPA concentrations may not be detectable, owing to a high level of variation in background BPA exposure. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: These results suggest that leaching of BPA from newly placed composite restorations ceases to be detectable in urine within 2 weeks after restoration placement. The potential human health impact of such short-term exposure remains uncertain.
Authors: Laura N Vandenberg; Theo Colborn; Tyrone B Hayes; Jerrold J Heindel; David R Jacobs; Duk-Hee Lee; Toshi Shioda; Ana M Soto; Frederick S vom Saal; Wade V Welshons; R Thomas Zoeller; John Peterson Myers Journal: Endocr Rev Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 19.871
Authors: Abby F Fleisch; Perry E Sheffield; Courtney Chinn; Burton L Edelstein; Philip J Landrigan Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-09-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Adrian Covaci; Elly Den Hond; Tinne Geens; Eva Govarts; Gudrun Koppen; Hanne Frederiksen; Lisbeth E Knudsen; Thit A Mørck; Arno C Gutleb; Cedric Guignard; Emanuelle Cocco; Milena Horvat; Ester Heath; Tina Kosjek; Darja Mazej; Janja Snoj Tratnik; Argelia Castaño; Marta Esteban; Francisco Cutanda; Juan José Ramos; Marika Berglund; Kristin Larsson; Bo A G Jönsson; Pierre Biot; Ludwine Casteleyn; Reinhard Joas; Anke Joas; Louis Bloemen; Ovnair Sepai; Karen Exley; Greet Schoeters; Jürgen Angerer; Marike Kolossa-Gehring; Ulrike Fiddicke; Dominique Aerts; Holger M Koch Journal: Environ Res Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Adam J Spanier; Robert S Kahn; Allen R Kunselman; Eric W Schaefer; Richard Hornung; Yingying Xu; Antonia M Calafat; Bruce P Lanphear Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Wade V Welshons; Kristina A Thayer; Barbara M Judy; Julia A Taylor; Edward M Curran; Frederick S vom Saal Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Antonia M Calafat; Xiaoyun Ye; Lee-Yang Wong; John A Reidy; Larry L Needham Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Ana P Fugolin; Andreia B de Paula; Adam Dobson; Vincent Huynh; Rafael Consani; Jack L Ferracane; Carmem S Pfeifer Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Shaina L Stacy; Melissa Eliot; Antonia M Calafat; Aimin Chen; Bruce P Lanphear; Russ Hauser; George D Papandonatos; Sheela Sathyanarayana; Xiaoyun Ye; Kimberly Yolton; Joseph M Braun Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Andrea L Deierlein; Mary S Wolff; Ashley Pajak; Susan M Pinney; Gayle C Windham; Maida P Galvez; Michael Rybak; Antonia M Calafat; Lawrence H Kushi; Frank M Biro; Susan L Teitelbaum Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 4.897