Enhanced tissue response to denture base polymers in formaldehyde-sensitized guinea pigs

Kallus, Thomas

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(84)90115-x

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Direct toxic effects may also occur, e.g. from formaldehydecontaining materials (12)-and also enhanced tissue response to methylmethacrylate in formaldehyde-sensitized individuals (13). However, it is important to bear in mind that the presence of an allergen or a toxic component in a material is not a verification of the reason for a reaction per se.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence of adverse effects of dental materials

Kallus

Mjör

1991

European J Oral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

– Acute and long‐standing adverse effects from dental materials used in the treatment of 13 325 patients in 15 820 appointments were recorded by 137 dentists. Twenty‐four suspected side effects were reported by the patients and 22 by the clinicians; 7 were classified as “probable” or “possible” acute reactions and 15 as long‐standing effects, 13 being “verified” and 2 “probable”. In another survey, 31 dentists representing a total of 387 years of practice recollected 113 patients with side effects from dental materials.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence of adverse effects of dental materials

Kallus

Mjör

1991

European J Oral Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mjor (1991) emphasized that most verified adverse effects of dental materials are allergic reactions, because many dental materials contain components which are known to be common allergens, e.g., chromium, cobalt, mercury, eugenol, components of resin-based materials, colophonium, and formaldehyde. Minute amounts of formaldehyde may form as a degradation product of unreacted monomers in dentures made from resin-based composite materials (0ysaed et ai, 1988a,b), and formaldehyde-sensitized individuals may develop enhanced tissue responses (Kallus, 1984).…”

Section: Systemic Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local and Systemic Responses To Dental Composites and Glass Ionomers

Stanley

1992

Adv Dent Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For many years, the dental profession worked mainly with rather inert restorative materials that had a limited contact with vital tissue, and the opportunity for local and systemic complications was minimal. However, conditions have changed in recent years where the two leading non-mercury-containing materials, resin composites and glass-ionomer cements, are chemically active compounds and can have detrimental effects on pulp tissue. With the advent of light-curing techniques with incremental layering, resin component formulae that were formerly found to be quite irritating to the pulp have become less so with the elimination of the need for matrices and pressure for good adaptation to be gained. As experience revealed the deficiencies and dangers of ultraviolet-light-curing techniques, visible-light-curing systems were developed that provided greater depth of cure, a higher degree of polymerization with less shrinkage with incremental layers, and less porosity. When glass-ionomer cements (GICs) were first introduced, with just one acid (polyacrylic), pulpal responses were classified as bland. With the addition of many more acids to enhance certain characteristics and reduce the setting time, GICs have become more irritating, especially when used as luting agents in areas where the remaining dentin thickness is 0.5 mm or less. Gold foil and amalgam are inert and innocuous restorative materials but require pressure for condensation which creates an exaggerated inflammatory response. This presentation emphasizes the pulpal responses and side-effects of these non-mercury-containing restorative materials and how to keep them within an acceptable range of biocompatibility. Despite the lack of any substantial appearance of soft tissue and systemic responses to resin composites and GICs, the results of a survey of recent literature are included.

show abstract

“…The guinea pig maximization test is well established, and the results are considered to indicate the allergenic potential of compounds in man (19). The method has pfeviously been applied to other dental materials, e.g., endodontie sealers (21), denture base rnaterials (22), and resin-based filling materials (23). Ideally, in the guinea pig maximization test, the animals are exposed to well-deftned chemical compounds (24).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allergenic potential of two orthodontic bonding materials

Söhoel

Gjerdet

Hensten‐Pettersen

et al. 1994

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sensitization potential of two orthodontic bonding materials, one conventional premix product and one nonmix product, was evaluated by a modified guinea pig maximization test. The nonmix product, consisting of a liquid to be applied to the tooth surface and a paste which was placed on the bracket base, caused reaction in 50% of the tested animals. This material should be considered to be a possible cause of allergy in patients or professionals handling it.

show abstract

Enhanced tissue response to denture base polymers in formaldehyde-sensitized guinea pigs

Cited by 16 publications

References 23 publications

Incidence of adverse effects of dental materials

Incidence of adverse effects of dental materials

Local and Systemic Responses To Dental Composites and Glass Ionomers

Allergenic potential of two orthodontic bonding materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About