Monomer release from direct and indirect adhesive restorations: A comparative in vitro study

Putzeys, Eveline; Vercruyssen, Catherine; Duca, Radu Corneliu; Saha, Priya; Godderis, Lode; Vanoirbeek, Jeroen; Peumans, Marleen; Meerbeek, Bart Van; Landuyt, Kirsten Van

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2020.06.001

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The control analysis was performed by HPLC-MS/MS calibrated with d16BPA as the internal standard. This analytical method is well established in recent literature [49][50][51] and is recommended by Hope et al [45]. The concentrations measured using HPLC-UV/Vis could not be reproduced as the amount of BPA detected was below the LOQ of 0.03 ng mL -1 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative in vitro study on monomer release from bisphenol A‐free and conventional temporary crown and bridge materials

Hampe

Wiessner

Frauendorf

et al. 2021

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to investigate the release of common monomers from two conventional and two bisphenol A (BPA)-free temporary crown and bridge materials. Cylindrical samples of all materials were prepared (N = 90; five samples for each material and cycle of analysis). All samples were immersed in high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-grade water and incubated for 1 h, 12 h, 24 h, and 7 days in an incubation shaker at 37˚C and 112 rpm. Extraction was performed in accordance with ISO 10993-12. Eluted monomers were detected and quantified by HPLC coupled with ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy and mass spectrometry (HPLC-UV/Vis-MS). Analysis of BPA was performed by HPLC coupled with ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy (HPLC-UV/Vis) and positive results were verified by HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS). Neither bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA) nor BPA was quantifiable in any of the crown and bridge samples investigated in the present study. However, all samples contained triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) and/or urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) after 24 h of incubation. Statistical analysis showed that significantly more UDMA was released from the BPA-free materials than from the conventional materials. All concentrations of UDMA measured were below the effective cytotoxic concentrations previously reported. However, for a few materials, especially BPA-free temporary crown and bridge materials, the levels of UDMA were above previously reported potentially harmful concentrations for local cells. As BPA-free materials were introduced as being more biocompatible than materials containing BPA, substitution of Bis-GMA with UDMA should be further investigated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative in vitro study on monomer release from bisphenol A‐free and conventional temporary crown and bridge materials

Hampe

Wiessner

Frauendorf

et al. 2021

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…46 Moreover, high content of unreacted monomer facilitates its release to body environment, limiting material biocompatibility and increasing cytotoxicity. 52,53 In the study conducted by Melo et al, instrument lubrication with SBMP caused reduction in the degree of conversion of all examined composites. Usage of ASB as a lubricant also decreased the degree of conversion for Empress Direct (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) A2 and Bleach shades however increased it for Esthet X HD (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Delaware, United States) A2 shade.…”

Section: Polymerization Qualitymentioning

confidence: 89%

Influence of Instrument Lubrication on Properties of Dental Composites

Kosewski

Mielczarek

2022

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resin composites are one of the most commonly used materials in restorative dentistry. To improve their handling and facilitate restoration sculpting, clinicians began to lubricate modeling instruments with various substances like alcohol, unfilled resins, or even bonding agents. Although the technique is commonly present in daily clinical practice, it has not been precisely described in the literature and both application methods and lubricating materials vary across the available studies. This study aims to summarize the currently available knowledge about influence of instrument lubrication on properties of dental composites. Literature selection was conducted within MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and EBSCO databases. Instrument lubrication seems not to be indifferent for composite mechanical and optical properties. Moreover, various lubricants can differently affect the composite material, so the choice of lubricating agent should be deliberate and cautious. Available in vitro studies suggest possible incorporation of lubricant into the composite structure. Unfilled resins based on bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (Bis-GMA) seem to be the best choice for the lubricant, as bonding agents containing hydrophilic molecules and alcohols carry a bigger risk of altering the composite properties. Further research is necessary to evaluate lubricants' influence in clinical practice conditions.

show abstract

“…The latter might be more stable in terms of monomer delivery and therefore might be more biocompatible. 30 For instance, a study assessed the osseointegration of PMMA implants placed in a mongrel dog for a period of 24 months, 31 and the authors concluded that clinically and histologically, the PMMA plastic implants were bioacceptable, displayed functional stability (due to their shape, size and technical design), and were successfully osseointegrated. Another study found the formation of the basal membrane and of hemidesmosomes two weeks after the placement of endosseous epoxy resin dental implants in dogs.…”

Section: Effects Of the Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Abutment Materials on Peri‐Implant Soft Tissue Integration: A Study in Minipigs

Dethier

Baćević

Lecloux

et al. 2022

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate, in a minipig model, the soft tissue integration of four different transmucosal materials, as well as the peri‐implant bone remodeling. Materials and methods A total of 40 implants were placed in five minipigs in a single stage surgery, and two of each of the following abutment materials were used in each animal: (1) titanium (Ti; control), (2) polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), (3) zirconia (Zi), and (4) veneering ceramic (VC). After a healing period of 3 months, the samples were collected and subjected to nondecalcified histology. The soft tissue dimensions (sulcus, junctional epithelium, and connective tissue attachment) were assessed on each abutment and the distance from the implant margin to first bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) was measured. Results The mean biological width—characterized by the sum of junctional epithelium and connective tissue measurements—was 3.8 (0.6) mm and no statistically significant difference was found between the four groups (p = 0.41). However, a long junctional epithelium (3.3‐3.8 mm) and a very short connective tissue attachment (0.1‐0.2 mm) were observed with all abutments. The measured peri‐implant bone remodeling was similar in all four groups (p = 0.88). Conclusions Within its limitations, this study showed that all tested materials allowed soft tissue integration, consisting of a long junctional epithelium, extending close to the bone level, and a rather short portion of connective tissue.

show abstract

Monomer release from direct and indirect adhesive restorations: A comparative in vitro study

Cited by 21 publications

References 13 publications

A comparative in vitro study on monomer release from bisphenol A‐free and conventional temporary crown and bridge materials

A comparative in vitro study on monomer release from bisphenol A‐free and conventional temporary crown and bridge materials

Influence of Instrument Lubrication on Properties of Dental Composites

The Effects of Abutment Materials on Peri‐Implant Soft Tissue Integration: A Study in Minipigs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About