Study of the potential cytotoxicity of dental impression materials

Tiozzo, Roberta; Magagna, Federico; Boraldi, Federica; Antonietta, Croce Maria; Bortolini, Sergio; Consolo, Ugo

doi:10.1016/s0887-2333(03)00107-3

Cited by 35 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…polysulfide (PL) during direct contact with either hTERT-hNOF or HGF-1 (Fig. 2) agrees with results that showed low cytotoxicity by the previous study 15) . However, despite the previous report of high cytotoxicity by condensation silicone due to production of ethyl or methyl-alcohol during the polymerization 16) , condensation silicone in our study (XC) showed relatively low level of cytotoxicity during both test on extract and test by direct contact for all fibroblast cell types (Figs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Elastomeric Impression Materials Using Different Fibroblasts Cell Lines

Kwon¹,

Kim

2014

Journal of Korean Dental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

cc This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Purpose: Current common method of cytotoxicity evaluation for elastomeric impression materials use animal based cell lines, which the clinical relevance has been often questioned. Hence, the purpose of this study was to examine the difference in results with both human based and animal based fibroblast cell line. Materials and Methods:Three types of fibroblast cells were used in this study; conventional mouse fibroblasts of L929, human gingival fibroblasts (HGF-1), and immortalized human oral fibrobalsts (hTERT-hNOF). Test on extract and test by direct contact using different commercially available elastomeric impression materials were carried out according to the international standards.Result: There was significant difference in cell viability between types of fibroblasts cell used, where HGF-1 showed highest cell viability and L929 the lowest. Conclusion:Within the limitation of this study, careful consideration must be given when selecting the cells and interpreting the results for cytotoxicity evaluation of elastomeric impression materials, where use of human based cell lines such as hTERT-hNOF would be appropriate for both ease of cytotoxicity test and clinical relevance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Elastomeric Impression Materials Using Different Fibroblasts Cell Lines

Kwon¹,

Kim

2014

Journal of Korean Dental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7 However, the impact of released compounds from denture soft lining polymers on the physiological processes of local cells and tissues is rarely reported in the literature, with studies often limited to cytotoxicity tests, that is, whether the cells ‘live or die’. 1–6,8 Thus, in this study, the effect of soft reliners was evaluated not only on cell survival, using the alamarBlue cell metabolism assay, but also on two molecules that act as key regulators in wound repair, namely, Integrin α 5 β 1 and TGF-β 1 , using ELISA 96-well assays. Unlike many other cell metabolism/survival assays commonly used, such as 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT), 1–6,8 alamarBlue is a non-destructive method 9 that allows continuous monitoring of the same cell population throughout the entire study period.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This procedure was undertaken to avoid the uncontrollable serum interaction and/or the neutralization of possible substances released by the materials during the incubation period. 2 Control cultures were selected as medium without serum in contact with the cells under the same culture conditions. The cells were in contact with the materials for 24 and 48 h, respectively, prior to collecting the cell culture supernatants, which were stored at −70°C until required for the ELISA assays.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological effects of soft denture reline materials on L929 cells in vitro

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soft denture reline materials have been developed to help patients when their oral mucosa is damaged or affected due to ill-fitting dentures or post-implant surgery. Although reports have indicated that these materials leach monomers and other components that do affect their biocompatibility, there is little information on what cell molecules may be implicated in these material/tissue interactions. The biocompatibility of six soft liners (Ufi Gel P, Sofreliner S, Durabase Soft, Trusoft, Softone and Coe Comfort) was evaluated using a mouse fibroblast cell line, L929. Within 2 h of material disc preparation, each of the materials was exposed by direct contact to L929 cells for periods of 24 and 48 h. The effect of this interaction was assessed by alamarBlue assay (for cell survival). The expression of integrin α5β1 and transforming growth factor β1 was also assessed using plate assays such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Trusoft, Softone and Coe Comfort showed significantly reduced cell survival compared with the other soft lining materials at each incubation period. Furthermore, there were significant differences with these same materials in the expression of both integrin α5β1 and transforming growth factor β1. Soft liner materials may affect cell viability and cellular proteins that have important roles in wound healing and the preservation of cell viability and function in the presence of environmental challenges and stresses.

show abstract

“…Studies have shown that there is a low probability of allergic or toxic reactions. Cytotoxic tests on cell cultures have shown that polyethers are more toxic than vinyl polysiloxanes [5, 6]. Concomitantly, for cytotoxicity evaluation, a contact time of 15 or 30 min between cell and dental impression materials is needed to be more reflective of clinical situations, knowing that significant ( P < 0.05) differences of cell viability and cell proliferation have been found between the “polymerizing” and “set” impression materials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impression Material Mass Retained in the Mucobuccal Fold

Genno

Assaf

2014

Case Reports in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trapped foreign bodies and tissue reactions to foreign materials are commonly encountered in the oral cavity. Traumatically introduced dental materials, instruments, or needles are the most common materials referred to in the dental literature. This paper describes an iatrogenic foreign body encapsulation in the oral mucosa, clinically appearing as 5 × 10 mm tumor-like swelling with an intact overlying epithelium and diagnosed as a polymeric impression material. Detailed case history and, clinical and radiographic examinations including CBCT and spectrometric analysis of the retrieved sample were necessary to determine accurately the nature, size, and location of the foreign body. It is suggested that the origin of the material relates to an impression made 2 years ago, leaving a mass trapped in a traumatized mucosal tissue.

show abstract

Study of the potential cytotoxicity of dental impression materials

Cited by 35 publications

References 10 publications

Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Elastomeric Impression Materials Using Different Fibroblasts Cell Lines

Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Elastomeric Impression Materials Using Different Fibroblasts Cell Lines

Biological effects of soft denture reline materials on L929 cells in vitro

Impression Material Mass Retained in the Mucobuccal Fold

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About