It was the purpose of this investigation to determine the cytotoxic effects (ED50 concentrations) of 35 monomers or additives identified in commercial dental resin composites. Monolayers of permanent 3T3 cells and three primary human fibroblast types derived from oral tissues (gingiva, pulp, and periodontal ligament) were used as test systems. All substances were tested in concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 5.0 mM. In general, ED50 values varied from 0.06 to > 5 mM. Within the groups of co(monomers), initiators, and cointiators, severe (e.g., Bis-GMA, UDMA, DMBZ, and DMDTA) or moderate (HEMA, BEMA, CQ, DMPT, and DMAPE) cytotoxic effects could be evaluated. Within the group of reaction/decomposition products, only moderate or slight effects were found (ED50: 0.7 to > 5 mM). The inhibitor BHT, the contaminant TPSb, and the photostabilizer HMBP, however, were highly cytotoxic in all cell cultures. In addition, the ED50 values of DBPO and HMBP significantly varied (0.43-3.8 mM, respectively, and 0.44-3.07 mM) with the applied cell culture. Our comprehensive screening shows that for several of the highly cytotoxic composite components, less cytotoxic alternatives are available. Furthermore, there was no cell type identified which was consistently less or more sensitive to the toxic effects of the tested compounds than the others. Primary human periodontal ligament and pulp fibroblasts, however, were found to be more sensitive than 3T3 and gingival fibroblasts to alterations from most tested substances.

No abstract

An increasing number of cavities in the primary and permanent dentition is restored with tooth-colored materials, especially dental resin composites or glass ionomer cements. Several investigations have revealed that various components are segregated from different composite filling materials into an aqueous environment after polymerization. Most organic substances can be extracted from a set resin by organic solvents (methanol, tetrahydrofuran, ethanol). Furthermore, in most studies, the co-monomer TEG-DMA has been identified as the main compound released from polymerized resin composites into aqueous media. However, small quantities of the monomers (Bis-GMA, UDMA) and other co-monomers, as well as additives, may also be released into water. Very little data have been published about substances released from various types of glass ionomer cements (GIC), except the liberation of fluoride. Erosion studies have revealed that there is a considerable disintegration of GICs at lower pH-values. However, the nature of the eroded substances has not yet been clarified. Altogether, the data presented in this review indicate that information is comparably scarce for resin composites and GICs in comparison to the rich amount of knowledge concerning amalgams. Therefore, further studies are necessary to determine quality and quantity of substances segregated from resin composites and GICs.

Increasing numbers of resin-based dental restorations have been placed over the past decade. During this same period, the public interest in the local and especially systemic adverse effects caused by dental materials has increased significantly It has been found that each resin-based material releases several components into the oral environment. In particular, the comonomer, triethyleneglycol di-methacrylate (TEGDMA), and the 'hydrophilic' monomer, 2-hydroxy-ethyl-methacrylate (HEMA), are leached out from various composite resins and 'adhesive' materials (e.g., resin-modified glass-ionomer cements IGICsl and dentin adhesives) in considerable amounts during the first 24 hours after polymerization. Numerous unbound resin components may leach into saliva during the initial phase after polymerization, and later, due to degradation or erosion of the resinous restoration. Those substances may be systemically distributed and could potentially cause adverse systemic effects in patients. In addition, absorption of organic substances from unpolymerized material, through unprotected skin, due to manual contact may pose a special risk for dental personnel. This is borne out by the increasing numbers of dental nurses, technicians, and aentists who present with allergic reactions to one or more resin components, like HEMA, glutaraldehyde, ethyleneglycol di-methacrylate (EGDMA), and dibenzoyl peroxide (DPO). However, it must be emphasized that, except for conventional composite resins, data reported on the release of substances from resin-based materials are scarce. There is very little reliable information with respect to the biological interactions between resin components and various tissues. Those interactions may be either protective, like absorption to dentin, or detrimental, e.g., inflammatory reactions of soft tissues. Microbial effects have also been observed which may contribute indirectly to caries and irritation of the pulp. Therefore, it is critical, both for our patients and for the profession, that the biological effects of resin-based filling materials be clarified in the near future,

No abstract