Genotoxicity Induced by Dental Materials: A Comprehensive Review

doi:10.21873/anticanres.11786

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 91 publications

(109 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Assessment of genotoxicity of dental materials is essential for determining the health dangers due to an evidenced link between genetic damage and carcinogenesis. 13 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility and Surface Roughness of Different Sustainable Dental Composite Blocks: Comprehensive In Vitro Study

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study purposed to investigate the biocompatibility and sustainability of two computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) resin-based composites compared to a resin-modified ceramic in terms of surface roughness, biofilm formation, cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, and cellular changes observed under transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Three CAD/CAM blocks were used, two resin-based composites [Brilliant Crios (BC) and Cerasmart, (CS) and one hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic (EN)]. Each block was sectioned into 10 × 12 × 2 mm specimens, followed by finishing and polishing. Each specimen was evaluated for surface roughness using 3D optical profilometry and scanned by scanning electron microscopy. Biofilm formation and its relation to surface roughness have been investigated for all tested materials. A Hep-2 cell line was used to investigate the viability through MTT assay. The cytotoxicity of the materials was measured at 24, 48, and 168 h. The activity of P53, caspase 3, and cytochrome C was evaluated to detect the genotoxicity of different groups, followed by TEM tracking of the cellular changes. Statistical analysis was implemented by utilizing a one-way analysis of variance test. The significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. With regard to the surface roughness, no statistically significant differences were shown between groups. BC possessed the highest biofilm formation value, followed by EN and CS, with no significance between them. No correlation between surface roughness of tested materials and biofilm formation was shown. Considering viability, the highest values were recorded for EN, whereas BC showed the lowest values. P53-fold changes in EN were significantly the lowest, indicating less genotoxicity. Within the current study’s limitations, BC showed the highest biofilm formation. However, no significant surface roughness difference or correlation with biofilm formation was observed in tested materials. EN showed the lowest cytotoxicity and the highest viability. EN revealed the best compatibility performance among tested materials. On the contrary, the BC exhibited fewer preferences.

show abstract

“…Assessment of genotoxicity of dental materials is essential for determining the health dangers due to an evidenced link between genetic damage and carcinogenesis. 13 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility and Surface Roughness of Different Sustainable Dental Composite Blocks: Comprehensive In Vitro Study

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Actually, a recently published review regarding genotoxicity induced by dental materials does not include any of the materials evaluated in our study. 9 Despite this, the behavior of light-cure dressing materials evaluated in this study can be explained by analyzing the genotoxicity of their individual components, specially the urethane dimethacrylate monomer, where a study found that this compound did not induce strand breaks in an isolated plasmid DNA. 30 This study also evaluated the ultimate tensile strength of periodontal dressing materials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…These tests are commonly used for the initial assessment of the toxic effects of dental materials, presiding the pre-clinical and clinical evaluation. 8,9,10 One important factor for the delineation of in vitro cytotoxic test is the choice of an adequate cell line related with the intended application of the material. 11,12 In this study, periodontal dressings were tested against fibroblasts, since connective tissue is the most frequently protected tissue by surgical dressings in periodontal surgeries and to follow recommendations from the ISO 10993-5.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological and mechanical characterization of commercial and experimental periodontal surgical dressings

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility and mechanical properties of two commercially available and one experimental periodontal dressing materials. The cytotoxicity of Periobond ® , Barricaid ® and one experimental periodontal dressing based on Exothane ® 8 monomer was tested on 3T3/NIH mouse fibroblast. Genotoxicity was assessed by micronuclei formation, and cell alterations were analyzed using light microscopy. Both biological assays were performed using the eluate obtained from specimens after 24, 72, or 168 hours of incubation. Mechanical characterization was assessed through the ultimate tensile strength and the water sorption and solubility tests. The significance level of α = 0.05 was used for all statistical analyses. All the materials promoted a cell viability lower than 60% in all evaluated times. In general, the cell viability was significantly reduced after 72 and 168h of specimens' incubation. Considering the factor material, there were not statistical differences in the cell viability (p = 0.156). The genotoxicity was not statistically significant among the groups in the different periods of time (p > 0.05). Differences in the ultimate tensile strength values were not statistically significant different among the groups (p = 0.125). Periobond ® showed the higher water sorption values (p < 0.001). Regarding solubility, there were no statistical differences between the groups (p = 0.098). All the periodontal dressing materials evaluated in this study exerted a cytotoxic effect against mouse fibroblasts, and their toxicity became more evident over time. Among the materials evaluated, the experimental light-cure type has shown overall similar properties to the commercial references.

show abstract

“…However, a certain degree of toxicity ranging from a mild allergic response to genotoxicity and mutagenicity is observed in a plethora of dental materials, including sodium hypochlorite. [ 5 ] Recently, an organic carcinogen named 2,6-xylidine was reported by Vidhya et al . formed on the interaction between lidocaine hydrochloride and sodium hypochlorite.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The existence of any carcinogen in the root canal system over a longer duration under constant function will lead to its eventual seepage into the periapical environment. [ 5 ] Saravanakarthikeyan et al . conducted a study, which showed the persistence of this precipitate in the canal even after chemo-mechanical preparation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficient removal of 2,6-xylidine precipitate using different agitation protocols: An in vitro field emission scanning electron microscopic study

Shetty¹,

Sripada²,

Bhandary³

et al. 2021

J Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Any solution of chemical nature when combined will result in the formation of a precipitate, which in the root canal system will interfere with the hermetic seal. In clinical practice presence of any precipitate, especially carcinogenic in nature, should be eliminated. Aim: To evaluate whether final irrigation with different agitation protocols will remove the precipitate formed following lidocaine hydrochloride and sodium hypochlorite combination at the coronal, middle, and apical-root thirds. Materials and Methods: Forty-four uniradicular teeth were standardized at 17 mm. All specimens were injected with 2% lidocaine hydrochloride and 2.5% sodium hypochlorite, followed by mechanical instrumentation using rotary files. Further, specimens were arbitrarily divided into four groups ( n = 11) based on the final irrigation protocol: Group 1: No irrigation; Group 2: Manual irrigation; Group 3: Mechanical irrigation; Group 4: Ultrasonic irrigation. Samples were sectioned and Field Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopic (FESEM) analysis of the canal wall was done at coronal, middle, and apical thirds. Results: FESEM images revealed occluded dentinal tubules with the presence of precipitate seen in all-thirds of each specimen. Conclusion: No irrigation protocol was successful in removing the precipitate formed; but when compared ultrasonic irrigation had the least precipitate seen at-coronal,-middle and apical thirds.

show abstract

Genotoxicity Induced by Dental Materials: A Comprehensive Review

Abstract: Abstract. Genotoxicity is the capacity of an agent

Cited by 9 publications

References 91 publications

Biocompatibility and Surface Roughness of Different Sustainable Dental Composite Blocks: Comprehensive In Vitro Study

Biocompatibility and Surface Roughness of Different Sustainable Dental Composite Blocks: Comprehensive In Vitro Study

Biological and mechanical characterization of commercial and experimental periodontal surgical dressings

Efficient removal of 2,6-xylidine precipitate using different agitation protocols: An in vitro field emission scanning electron microscopic study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About