Release and toxicity of dental resin composite

Gupta, Saurabh Kumar; Saxena, Payal; Pant, Vandana A; Pant, Aditya B.

doi:10.4103/0971-6580.103652

Cited by 137 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 72 publications

(77 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This explains the use of primary human gingival fibroblast cells as cell model for cytotoxicity assessment of the tested dental composite in the current study. The toxicity potential of the released substances from dental composite has been widely studied [43][44] . In order to assess the cytotoxic potential of materials, two contact model cells could be performed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confocal Time Lapse Imaging as an Efficient Method for the Cytocompatibility Evaluation of Dental Composites

Attik¹,

Gritsch²,

Colon³

et al. 2014

JoVE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is generally accepted that in vitro cell material interaction is a useful criterion in the evaluation of dental material biocompatibility. The objective of this study was to use 3D CLSM time lapse confocal imaging to assess the in vitro biocompatibility of dental composites. This method provides an accurate and sensitive indication of viable cell rate in contact with dental composite extracts. The ELS extra low shrinkage, a dental composite used for direct restoration, has been taken as example. In vitro assessment was performed on cultured primary human gingival fibroblast cells using Live/Dead staining. Images were obtained with the FV10i confocal biological inverted system and analyzed with the FV10-ASW 3.1 Software. Image analysis showed a very slight cytotoxicity in the presence of the tested composite after 5 hours of time lapse. A slight decrease of cell viability was shown in contact with the tested composite extracts compared to control cells. The findings highlighted the use of 3D CLSM time lapse imaging as a sensitive method to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the biocompatibility behavior of dental composites.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confocal Time Lapse Imaging as an Efficient Method for the Cytocompatibility Evaluation of Dental Composites

Attik¹,

Gritsch²,

Colon³

et al. 2014

JoVE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Resin cements are composed of a polymeric organic matrix based on methacrylate monomers, filler particles, and bonding and other chemical agents, which are responsible for the polymerization reaction 7,9 . This composition is similar to that of composite resins and, although their toxic effects are described in many investigations 3,4,6,10 , few studies have evaluated the toxicity of resin cements 1,5 . Among the several resin cements available in the market, the light-cured ones are the first choice for the cementation of veneers due to their higher color stability and working time 5,6 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In vitro demonstrations found in the specific scientific literature show that monomer conversion is not complete and that at the end of the reaction part of the monomers are released from the material into the adjacent tissues, generating local and systemic adverse effects 3,4,10,11 . Gupta et al 10 , in 2012, conducted a literature review on the cytotoxic effect of composite resins. In vitro and in vivo studies have clearly identified that some components released from the material are toxic.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cytotoxicity of three light-cured resin cements on 3T3 fibroblasts

Tumscitz

Laxe

Pascoal

et al. 2017

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoIntrodução: Cimentos resinosos fotopolimerizáveis são materiais de eleição para a cimentação de facetas laminadas. Devem ser biocompatíveis oferencendo riscos mínimos ao uso clínico em pacientes. Objetivo: O objetivo desse trabalho foi avaliar in vitro a citotoxicidade de três cimentos resinosos: Variolink II (Ivoclar Vivadent), Allcem Veneer, (FGM) e Rely X Veneer (3M ESPE). Material e método: Vinte e quatro corpos de prova de cada cimento foram confeccionados em matrizes metálicas padronizadas e inseridos em placa de cultura de células de noventa e seis poços contendo fibroblastos da linhagem 3T3. As células foram cultivadas em meio de cultivo celular RPMI 1640 com 5% de soro fetal bovino, com 0,1% de penicilina/estreptomicina em estufa a 37°C, em atmosfera úmida com 5% de CO2. O grau de citotoxicidade de cada cimento foi avaliado após os tempos de contato de 24h, 48h e 72h através do método MTT (3-(4,5-dimetiltiazol-2yl)-2,5-difenil brometo de tetrazolina), que avalia a viabilidade celular pela função mitocondrial. Após os tempos estabelecidos, as amostras foram removidas, tratadas e levadas ao espectofotômetro de microplaca para leitura da absorbância em 570nm. Resultado: O cimento Variolink apresentou em 24h viabilidade de 72,24% (±6,80), em 48h de 83,92% (± 5,26) e de 92,77% (±5,59) em 72h. Allcem Veneer apresentou viabilidade de 70,46% (± 12,91) em 24h; 85,03% (± 21,4) em 48h e 70,46% (± 12,91) em 72h. O RelyX Veneer demonstrou viabilidade de 5,06% (± 0,88) em 24h; 5,84% (± 1,18) em 48h e 6,99% (± 1,34) em 72h. Conclusão: Estes resultados demonstraram que o cimento Rely-X se apresentou significativamente mais citotóxico nas condições testadas.Descritores: Facetas dentárias; cimentos de resina; citotoxicidade; resinas compostas; sobrevivência celular. AbstractIntroduction: Light-cured resin cements are the first choice for the cementation of laminate veneers. Ideally, they should be biocompatible and offer minimum risks to patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate, in vitro, the cytotoxicity of three resin cements: Variolink II, Ivoclar Vivadent (C1), Allcem Veneer, FGM (C2), and Rely X Veneer, 3M ESPE (C3). Material and method: Twenty four samples of each of the cements were fabricated in a standardized metal mold, light activated, and transferred to a 96-well cell plate with culture of fibroblasts. After 24, 48, and 72h of incubation, cytotoxicity was assessed and cell viability was calculated by the methyl-thiazol-tetrazolium (MTT) colorimetric assay. Absorbance was measured at 570 nm using a microplate spectrophotometer. Result: The following results were found: Variolink II presented viability of 72.24% (SD 6.80) after 24h, 83.92% (SD 5.26) after 48h, and 92.77% (SD 5.59) after 72h; Allcem Veneer exhibited viability of 70.46% (SD 12.91) after 24h, 85.03% (SD 21.4) after 48h, and 70.46% (SD 12.91) after 72h; Rely X Veneer showed viability of 5.06% (SD 0.88) after 24h, 5.84% (SD 1.18) after 48h, and 6.99% (SD 1.34) after 72h. Conclusion: Under these testing conditions, Rely X Vene...

show abstract

“…4b). The polymer materials also show a possible risk of residual free monomers releasing into the surrounding environment, which may give rise to health problems in susceptible individuals, especially to allergic reactions [3][4][5][6].…”

Section: Polymeric Materials For the Reconstruction Of Hard Dental Timentioning

confidence: 99%

The Current View on the Use of Reconstruction Materials in Dentistry

Vrbová¹,

Bradna²,

Bartoš³

et al. 2017

APP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The hardest tissue in the human body is the enamel which covers the anatomical crowns of teeth. It must be resistant to mechanical stress and the chemical attack of many substances from food, drinks and products of the metabolism of bacteria present in the oral cavity. These low pH substances dissolve the mineral components of enamel, cause tooth demineralization, and lead to decay or erosion damage with the irreversible loss of dental hard tissues and the necessity of their reconstruction. The range of dental materials intended for dental tissue reconstruction is extensive. Dental amalgam can be mechanically applied into the strongly stressed lateral segments of teeth. The use of amalgam is, however, in decline, with the possible health risks attributed to it, coupled with the need to extensively prepare tooth tissue promoting a shift towards using aesthetically and biologically favourable dental ceramic and polymeric materials instead. Current developments also concentrate on these materials to reinforce this, with polymeric composite materials based on methacrylates with varying amounts of inorganic fillers at the forefront. These materials are distinguished by their good mechanical and aesthetic properties and wear resistance. However, polymerization shrinkage and a strong hydrophobic nature does not allow for their direct bonding to hard dental tissues. Risks associated with the release of residual free monomers from the structure to the environment, which may cause health complications, mainly allergic reactions in sensitive individuals, have been monitored recently. Further development in the field of composite materials aims to reduce or completely eliminate these negatives.

show abstract

Release and toxicity of dental resin composite

Cited by 137 publications

References 72 publications

Confocal Time Lapse Imaging as an Efficient Method for the Cytocompatibility Evaluation of Dental Composites

Confocal Time Lapse Imaging as an Efficient Method for the Cytocompatibility Evaluation of Dental Composites

Cytotoxicity of three light-cured resin cements on 3T3 fibroblasts

The Current View on the Use of Reconstruction Materials in Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About