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

Schedle, Andreas; Franz, Alexander; Rausch‐Fan, Xiaohui; Spittler, Andreas; Lucas, Trevor; Samorapoompichit, Puchit; Sperr, Wolfgang R.; Boltz‐Nitulescu, George

doi:10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00018-4

Cited by 109 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This inference is based on the observation that survival of human gingival fibroblasts in all cement-containing specimens was substantially lower than in control specimens without a presence of luting cements. This finding is in accordance with other in vitro experiments reporting that a number of dental materials exhibit cytotoxic effects and that cytotoxicity varies among the brands of dental materials 4,5,[9][10][11][12][18][19][20][21] . The reasons for cytotoxicity might be several.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The present experiment also found that cytotoxicity of luting cements was highest at the first hours after setting. This trend toward a decreasing cytotoxicity over time has been also observed in previous investigations 9,11,12) and were attributed to the reduced leakage as the most of the leachable components are released within the first hours 7) . Our experiment has also demonstrated that pre-washing of cements helps cells to survive in the vicinity of luting cements.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…The in vitro cell culture model provides a controllable and reproducible method to study the potential toxicity of dental materials [9][10][11][12][13] . Many in vitro studies have All three materials were handled and proportioned according to the manufacturers' instructions; Hoffmann's ZP, Fuji Plus RMGI were mixed manually and RelyX Unicem RC was mixed in a high-frequency mixing unit.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cytotoxicity of commonly used luting cements —An <i>in vitro</i> study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aimed to 1) evaluate the cytotoxicity of luting cements: Hoffmann's Zinc Phosphate (Hoffmann's ZP), GC Fuji Plus Resin Modified Glass Ionomer (Fuji Plus RMGI) and 3M ESPE RelyX Unicem Resin Cement (RelyX Unicem RC) and 2) test if pre-washing reduces the cements' cytotoxicity. In vitro human gingival fibroblast (HGF) culture model was chosen. The cytotoxicity was evaluated by MTT test, the cell viability -by staining the cells with AO/EB dye mixture. The means±SD of Cell Survival Ratio (CSR%) were compared among different cement types under two testing conditions, with or without cement pre-washing. The CSR%s were compared by ANOVA and linear multiple regression (LMR). Hoffmann's ZPC was less cytotoxic, while Fuji Plus RMGIC and RelyX Unicem RC were more cytotoxic (ANOVA, p<0.001). The type of cement and cement pre-washing jointly explained 90% of cell survival (LMR, p<0.001, adjusted squared R=0.889). The commonly used luting cements such as Hoffmann's ZP, Fuji Plus RMGI and RelyX Unicem RC may have a cytotoxic potential.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cytotoxicity of commonly used luting cements —An <i>in vitro</i> study

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Schedle et al obtained completely different results. 16 Using a flow cytometry method, the authors compared the cytotoxicity of various dentistry materials, including 2 conventional glass ionomer cements. 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.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Finite‐Element Analysis Study Comparing Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Caps in a Conometric Connection between Implant and Prosthesis

Ceddia,

Romasco,

Comuzzi

et al. 2024

Adv Eng Mater

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosthetic retention relies on the perfect adaptation between the cap and the abutment of a dental implant. The conometric connection ensures retention similar to cemented systems, preventing bacterial infiltration and sustaining a high implant success rate. Furthermore, the material used for the cap plays a crucial role in distributing stress on the implant components and bone. Traditionally, caps use Titanium (Ti), but ongoing research investigates Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for its bone‐like qualities and similar elasticity to Ti. This Finite Element Analysis (FEA) study compares stress and strain distributions between crestal and subcrestal implants using Ti and PEEK conometric caps, assessing retention through cap displacement to determine the material best suited for proper retention aligned with implant insertion depth. The findings indicate an improvement in stress and strain on trabecular bone, a reduction in stress on cortical bone, and thus enhanced implant stability due to higher stresses around the implant threads, particularly with PEEK coping and subcrestal placement. Consequently, PEEK emerged as a promising substitute for Ti in conometric caps as it absorbs stress more effectively, distributing it across prosthetics to counter stress‐shielding and prevent implant failure.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

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

Cited by 109 publications

References 31 publications

Cytotoxicity of commonly used luting cements —An <i>in vitro</i> study

Cytotoxicity of commonly used luting cements —An <i>in vitro</i> study

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

Finite‐Element Analysis Study Comparing Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Caps in a Conometric Connection between Implant and Prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About