Toxicity Testing of Restorative Dental Materials Using Brine Shrimp Larvae (Artemia salina)

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of extracts of different composites, glass ionomer cement (GIC)s and compomers on the viability of brine shrimp larvae. Ethanolic extracts of four dental composites (Z-100; Solitaire 2; Filtek P60 and Synergy), a conventional GIC (Ketac-Fil), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer), two compomers (F2000; Dyract AP), and a flowable compomer (Dyract Flow) were prepared from each material. Following evaporation of the ethanol, the extracts were resuspended in distilled water, which was then used to test the effects on the viability of brine shrimp larvae. For the composites, the extract of Synergy was the least toxic (88% viability) followed by the extracts of Solitaire 2, Z100 and P60 (75%, 67.5% and 50% viability, respectively). One-way ANOVA revealed highly significant differences between the resin composite materials (p<0.001). Follow-up comparison between the composite groups by Tukey's pairwise multiple-comparison test (α =0.05) showed that the extract of Synergy was significantly less toxic than the extracts of all the other materials except that of Solitaire 2. The compomers showed 100% lethality, while the percentage of viable larvae for the extracts of Ketac-Fil, and Vitremer were 32.3%, and 37.0%, respectively. One-way ANOVA revealed highly significant differences between the groups of materials (p<0.001). Follow-up comparison between the groups by Tukey's test (α = 0.05) showed that the toxic effect of the extracts of the compomers were significantly greater than that of Ketac-Fil, and Vitremer. The differences in the toxic effects of Vitremer and Ketac-Fil were not statistically significant. In conclusion, the toxicity of composite materials varied according to their chemical composition. Compomers were the most lethal materials to brine shrimp larvae followed by GICs and then composites.

Genotoxic effects of silver amalgam and composite restorations: Micronuclei-Based cohort and case–control study in oral exfoliated cells

“…Studies suggest that uncured resinous materials were considered more cytotoxic than cured materials. [ 19 ] Reichl et al . in 2006 conducted an in vitro study on cytotoxicity of dental composite monomers and the amalgam component Hg2 in human gingival fibroblasts wherein they inferred that the Hg from amalgam is more toxic than resin composite components.…”

Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of selected conventional glass ionomer cements on human gingival fibroblasts

“…On the basis of the study results, they suggested that for the evaluated cements, the adverse effects on fibroblasts were comparable to the effect of composite materials considered to be very cytotoxic. An unfavorable opinion on the biological characteristics of glass ionomer cements was presented in the study by Milhem et al 14 They conducted an experiment using Artemia Salina larvae exposed to alcohol eluates of the assessed materials. The results indicated that Ketac Fil cement was more toxic than the composite materials.…”

“…[10][11][12][13] However, there are reports noting an adverse effect of these materials on live cells. [14][15][16] Differences in the results obtained by researchers may result from variability in research protocols. 17,18 For this reason, the aim of our study was to compare the cytotoxicity of currently available conventional glass ionomer cements in identical conditions and to verify contradictory reports on their biocompatibility.…”

Dental composite restorations and neuropsychological development in children: Treatment level analysis from a randomized clinical trial

“…For the polyacid-modified composite (Dyract compomer), no detectable BPA or bisGMA were found in eluates from filled tooth samples in one study (Hamid et al, 1998). For both composites, numerous studies have reported cytotoxic effects (Milhem et al, 2008, Schweikl et al, 2005, Sletten and Dahl, 1999, Wataha et al, 1999). Resin-composite restorations have comparatively high failure rates (Soncini et al, 2007).…”