Component release from light‐activated glass ionomer and compomer cements

Hamid, Abdul; Okamoto, Akira; Iwaku, Masaaki; Hume, W.R.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00247.x

Cited by 56 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The cement was then introduced into a mold to prepare standardized round shaped specimens of 10.0 mm diameter and 2.0 mm height. that substantial amounts of HEMA were released from various commercially available RMGIC into the liquid medium, when studied using liquid chromatography [34,35]. The current study also found that the density of cells increased with decreasing concentration of all the material extracts.…”

Section: Preparation Of the Test Materials And Their Extractssupporting

confidence: 61%

In Vitro Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Novel Nano-Hydroxyapatite-Silica Incorporated Glass Ionomer Cement

Noorani

Luddin

Rahman

et al. 2017

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Glass Ionomer Cements (GIC) are among the most popular restorative materials, but their use in dentistry is limited due to their physical properties. The hardness of GIC was improved by incorporation of nano-hydroxyapatite-silica into GIC, to expand its applicability. Aim:To evaluate the cytotoxic effects of nano-hydroxyapatitesilica incorporated glass ionomer cement (HA-SiO 2 -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-SiO 2 -GIC were prepared into seven serial concentrations and applied to 96-well-plates seeded with DPSC. The 96-wellplates 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-SiO 2 -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-SiO 2 -GIC was comparable to that of Fuji IX and lower than that of Fuji II LC. Conclusion:HA-SiO 2 -GIC showed a favourable cytotoxicity response and thus holds promise as a future potential restorative material in clinical dentistry.

show abstract

Section: Preparation Of the Test Materials And Their Extractssupporting

confidence: 61%

In Vitro Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Novel Nano-Hydroxyapatite-Silica Incorporated Glass Ionomer Cement

Noorani

Luddin

Rahman

et al. 2017

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in agreement with our previous study 7 and with other reports. 13,14 We further demon- strated that all the biomaterials except Z100 MP induced a dose-dependent cellular GSH depletion. This GSH depletion appears to be involved in the cytotoxicity process, as the cytotoxicity effect can be prevented by cell treatment with NAC and, to a lesser extent, with exogenous GSH and cysteine.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…1,2,4 It is known that both composite resins and bonding resins release unreacted monomers of methacrylates into the adjacent aqueous phase and that monomers diffuse through dentin to the pulp. 11,12 Hamid et al 13 analyzed the high-performance liquid chromatography water eluates of seven commercially available RM-GIC, and HEMA was detected in each of the eluates. The toxicity of other dentin bonding components, such as Bis-GMA, TEGDMA, and UDMA, also was suggested.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental restorative biomaterials induce glutathione depletion in cultured human gingival fibroblast: Protective effect of N-acetyl cysteine

Stanislawski¹,

Soheili-Majd²,

Périanin

et al. 2000

J. Biomed. Mater. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eight biomaterials eluted from four different types of dental restorative biomaterials, that is, from glass-ionomer cement (GIC: Ketac-fil and Fuji II), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC: Fuji II LC and Photac-fil), composite (Z100 MP and Tetric-flow), and compomer (Compoglass F and F-2000), were studied for their cytotoxic properties in relation to glutathione (GSH) content in cultured human gingival fibroblasts. Z100 MP, Tetric-flow, and Compoglass F were less cytotoxic than the others, with a toxic concentration of 50% (TC 50) > 24% (of eluate), as determined by the MTT test. F-2000, Tetric-flow, and the other biomaterials were relatively more cytotoxic (TC 50 = 9-16%). With the exception of Z100 MP, all the biomaterials induced a depletion of cellular glutathione (GSH) that was variable depending upon the biomaterial eluates. The strongest GSH depletion was with F-2000, Fuji II, and Photac-fil. GSH depletion, with Compoglass and F-2000, was rapid-detectable after one h of cell treatment and complete within 3 h-whereas a longer period of incubation was required for the other biomaterials. Interestingly, the drug cytotoxic effects induced by all the biomaterials were prevented by cell treatment with the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC). This study provides evidence that the cytotoxic property of dental restorative biomaterials is associated with depletion of the glutathione level in gingival fibroblasts. While the molecular mechanisms of this phenomenon require further investigations, our data suggest that NAC may be useful in preventing the cellular damage induced by dental restorative biomaterials.

show abstract

“…The aqueous eluates of polyacidmodified composite resins were analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Ethylene glycol compounds (comonomers) and the hydrophilic monomer HEMA were the chief constituents identified in these aqueous extracts (Geurtsen et at., 1998b;Hamid et al, 1998). In addition, the following decomposition products of base monomers and several co-initiators were found: N-(2-cyanoethyl)-N-methylaniline (CEMA), 4-N,N-dimethyl amino benzoic acid ethylester (DMABEE), and N,N-dimethyl amino ethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA) (Geurtsen et al, 1998b).…”

Section: (G) Pulp Studies In Animals and Humansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility of Resin-Modified Filling Materials

Geurtsen

2000

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

357

258

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing numbers of resin-based dental restorations have been placed over the past decade. During this same period, the public interest in the local and especially systemic adverse effects caused by dental materials has increased significantly It has been found that each resin-based material releases several components into the oral environment. In particular, the comonomer, triethyleneglycol di-methacrylate (TEGDMA), and the 'hydrophilic' monomer, 2-hydroxy-ethyl-methacrylate (HEMA), are leached out from various composite resins and 'adhesive' materials (e.g., resin-modified glass-ionomer cements IGICsl and dentin adhesives) in considerable amounts during the first 24 hours after polymerization. Numerous unbound resin components may leach into saliva during the initial phase after polymerization, and later, due to degradation or erosion of the resinous restoration. Those substances may be systemically distributed and could potentially cause adverse systemic effects in patients. In addition, absorption of organic substances from unpolymerized material, through unprotected skin, due to manual contact may pose a special risk for dental personnel. This is borne out by the increasing numbers of dental nurses, technicians, and aentists who present with allergic reactions to one or more resin components, like HEMA, glutaraldehyde, ethyleneglycol di-methacrylate (EGDMA), and dibenzoyl peroxide (DPO). However, it must be emphasized that, except for conventional composite resins, data reported on the release of substances from resin-based materials are scarce. There is very little reliable information with respect to the biological interactions between resin components and various tissues. Those interactions may be either protective, like absorption to dentin, or detrimental, e.g., inflammatory reactions of soft tissues. Microbial effects have also been observed which may contribute indirectly to caries and irritation of the pulp. Therefore, it is critical, both for our patients and for the profession, that the biological effects of resin-based filling materials be clarified in the near future,

show abstract

Component release from light‐activated glass ionomer and compomer cements

Cited by 56 publications

References 33 publications

In Vitro Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Novel Nano-Hydroxyapatite-Silica Incorporated Glass Ionomer Cement

In Vitro Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Novel Nano-Hydroxyapatite-Silica Incorporated Glass Ionomer Cement

Dental restorative biomaterials induce glutathione depletion in cultured human gingival fibroblast: Protective effect of N-acetyl cysteine

Biocompatibility of Resin-Modified Filling Materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About