A New Generation of Sterile and Radiopaque Impression                     Materials—an <i>in vitro</i> Cytotoxicity Study

Coppi, C.; Devincenzi, Chiara Paolinelli; Bortolini, Sergio; Consolo, Ugo; Tiozzo, Roberta

doi:10.1177/0885328206071928

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies have shown that there is a low probability of allergic or toxic reactions. Cytotoxic tests on cell cultures have shown that polyethers are more toxic than vinyl polysiloxanes [5, 6]. Concomitantly, for cytotoxicity evaluation, a contact time of 15 or 30 min between cell and dental impression materials is needed to be more reflective of clinical situations, knowing that significant ( P < 0.05) differences of cell viability and cell proliferation have been found between the “polymerizing” and “set” impression materials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impression Material Mass Retained in the Mucobuccal Fold

Genno

Assaf

2014

Case Reports in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trapped foreign bodies and tissue reactions to foreign materials are commonly encountered in the oral cavity. Traumatically introduced dental materials, instruments, or needles are the most common materials referred to in the dental literature. This paper describes an iatrogenic foreign body encapsulation in the oral mucosa, clinically appearing as 5 × 10 mm tumor-like swelling with an intact overlying epithelium and diagnosed as a polymeric impression material. Detailed case history and, clinical and radiographic examinations including CBCT and spectrometric analysis of the retrieved sample were necessary to determine accurately the nature, size, and location of the foreign body. It is suggested that the origin of the material relates to an impression made 2 years ago, leaving a mass trapped in a traumatized mucosal tissue.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impression Material Mass Retained in the Mucobuccal Fold

Genno

Assaf

2014

Case Reports in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is the reason for recommending the brand of polyvinyl siloxane used in this study [18]. This is the only material available in a unidose with all parts pre-packaged and guaranteed sterile.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention of Cutaneous Tissue Contracture During Removal of Craniofacial Implant Superstructures for CT and MRI Studies

Sullivan¹,

Rossitto²,

Casey

2010

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesHead and neck cancer patients who have lost facial parts following surgical intervention frequently require craniofacial implant retained facial prostheses for restoration. Many craniofacial implant patients require computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans as part of their long-term follow-up care. Consequently removal of implant superstructures and peri-abutment tissue management is required for those studies. The purpose of the present paper was to describe a method for eliminating cranial imaging artifacts in patients with craniofacial implants.Material and MethodsThree patients wearing extraoral implant retained facial prostheses needing either computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging studies were discussed. Peri-implant soft tissues contracture after removal of percutaneous craniofacial implant abutments during computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging studies was prevented using a method proposed by authors. The procedure involves temporary removal of the supra-implant components prior to imaging and filling of the tissue openings with polyvinyl siloxane dental impression material.ResultsImmediately after filling of the tissue openings with polyvinyl siloxane dental impression material patients were sent for the imaging studies, and were asked to return for removal of the silicone plugs and reconnection of all superstructure hardware after imaging procedures were complete. The silicone plugs were easily removed with a dental explorer. The percutaneous abutments were immediately replaced and screwed into the implants which were at the bone level.ConclusionsPresented herein method eliminates the source of artifacts and prevents contracture of percutaneous tissues upon removal of the implant abutments during imaging.

show abstract

“…The elastomers can tear and can be trapped in the gingival sulcus under implants during impression making and cause adverse and toxic reactions when remained in contact for longer periods of time. [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] There are many reports on cytotoxicity, tissue reactions, and hypersensitivity of various other dental materials. [ 26 27 28 ] The potential cytotoxicity of these materials can be tested either by introducing the cells into the material (direct test) or to the eluted extracts of the impression materials (indirect tests).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of cytotoxicity levels of poly vinyl ether silicone, polyether, and poly vinyl siloxane impression materials: An in vitro study

Rajasimhan

Jayaraman

Ali

et al. 2019

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To assess the cytotoxicity level of newly introduced poly vinyl ether silicone (PVES) compared to poly vinyl siloxane (PVS) and polyether (PE) elastomeric impression materials. Settings and Design: Comparative -Invitro study design. Materials and Methods: Mouse cell line NIH/3T3 was grown in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium. Samples of three elastomers were dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide and were tested at various concentrations. Twenty-four well plates with NIH/3T3 cells with different concentrations of elastomeric solutions were incubated at 37°C. 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2-5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay was performed on day 1, 3, and 7, with a time interval of 15 min, 30 min, 60 min, and 24 th h to estimate the cytotoxicity for all three elastomers. Statistical Analysis Used: Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA test and the period effect within the subjects, repeated-measure ANOVA was done using the Greenhouse–Geisser correction method. Results: The mean cell viability (survival rate) of NIH 3T3 cells at the concentrations tested was measured. A repeated-measure Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA determined the mean survival concentration on day 1, 3, and 7. PVES showed significant decrease in the survival rate on day 1 than PVS and PE, while PVS and PE had significant decrease in the survival rates of cells on day 3 and 7 which were statistically significant ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: PVES shows early cytotoxic signs as compared to PVS and PE, and cell viability for PVS was the highest among all. When making impression with PVES and PE, it is always better to evaluate the impression and gingival sulcus carefully with magnification to prevent adverse reaction, if any material is left inadvertently for longer period of time.

show abstract

A New Generation of Sterile and Radiopaque Impression Materials—an in vitro Cytotoxicity Study

Cited by 12 publications

References 23 publications

Impression Material Mass Retained in the Mucobuccal Fold

Impression Material Mass Retained in the Mucobuccal Fold

Prevention of Cutaneous Tissue Contracture During Removal of Craniofacial Implant Superstructures for CT and MRI Studies

Evaluation of cytotoxicity levels of poly vinyl ether silicone, polyether, and poly vinyl siloxane impression materials: An in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About