Biological evaluation of subgingivally placed direct resin composite materials

Frese, Cornelia; Wolff, Diana; Krüger, Tanja; Staehle, Hans Jörg; Lux, Christopher J.; Erber, Ralph

doi:10.2334/josnusd.16-0827

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…15 Biocompatibility and cytotoxicity are another important concern because of the elution of cytotoxic substances like unreacted monomers in dental resin composites that can be harmful to tissues around the restoration, thus inducing systematic responses. 16,17 Besides the mentioned factors, other criteria such as polymerization shrinkage, secondary caries, and marginal fractures are other material-related drawbacks of dental resin composites. 18 The clinical performance of dental restoration and its overall success is the result of all criteria mentioned above.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of three nanofilled resin-based dental composites: Cytotoxicity, surface roughness, and flexural properties

Jafarnia

Valanezhad

Odatsu

et al. 2022

Polymers and Polymer Composites

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The clinical performance of dental composite restoration and its overall success are the result of physical, mechanical, and biological properties of the filling materials. The present study aimed to evaluate surface roughness, flexural properties, and cytotoxicity of two nanohybrids, namely, MI Gracefil and Herculite Ultra, and one nanoceramic dental resin composite DiamondLite. The surface roughness was assessed in two different grinding conditions. Flexural properties were measured by, the three-point bending test and the specimens’ fractured surface was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. Weibull analysis was performed on the flexural strength data to determine the composites’ reliability. The cytotoxicity test was conducted on MC3T3-E1 cells by the MTS assay. The results showed that grinding conditions had a significant effect on all nanocomposites' surface roughness ( p < .05). Herculite Ultra had a significantly higher flexural strength (125.8 MPa) and flexural modulus (9.8 GPa) as compared to other two nanocomposites ( p < .05). Further, cytotoxicity results indicated that DiamondLite had the lowest cell viability during the incubation period ( p < .05). The current study, therefore, concluded that the evaluated nanocomposites showed satisfactory surface roughness. Herculite Ultra flexural properties and Weibull modulus results make it a reliable choice for direct restorations. The cell viability results also showed that all three nanocomposites had moderate cytotoxicity, making them acceptable for direct application in the mouth.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of three nanofilled resin-based dental composites: Cytotoxicity, surface roughness, and flexural properties

Jafarnia

Valanezhad

Odatsu

et al. 2022

Polymers and Polymer Composites

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) analysis identified release of bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate, TEGDMA and diurethane dimethacrylate from composite resins (Tetric Evo Ceram, Tetric Ceram, Dyract Xtra, Filtek Supreme XTE, Admira) and shown that monomers release increases between 1 hour and 1 day but remains low (Frese et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cytotoxicity evaluation of dental and orthodontic light‐cured composite resins

Bationo

Rouamba

Diarra

et al. 2020

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The aim of this study was to determine the cytotoxicity of light‐cured composite resins (Clearfil ES‐2, Clearfil ES Flow, Filtek Supreme XTE, Grengloo, Blugloo, Transbond XT, and Transbond LR) then to assess leachable components in contact with human gingival fibroblasts (GFs) and to quantity detected bisphenol A (BPA). Methods Light‐cured composite resin discs were immersed for 24 hours in gingival fibroblastic medium (n = 3 for each product) and in control medium (n = 2 for each product) contained in plate. Cytotoxicity of the products (n = 95) was determined by the measure of cell viability using MTT assay after reading the optical densities of the plates. The analysis of leachable components was done by gas phase chromatography and mass spectrometry (GC–MS) and detected BPA was quantified. The limit of quantification was 0.01 μg/mL. Statistical analyses were performed by using IBM SPSS Statistics 20 and Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U‐tests were applied. Results Cell viabilities were between 85 and 90%. Many chemical compounds including triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) and BPA were identified. The average concentrations were 0.67 μg/mL ± 0.84 in the control medium and 0.73 μg/mL ± 1.05 in the fibroblastic medium. Filtek Supreme XTE presented the highest concentration of BPA with 2.16 μg/mL ± 0.65 and Clearfil ES Flow presented the lowest with 0.25 μg/mL ± 0.35. No BPA was detected with Transbond XT and Transbond LR. Clearfil ES Flow, Filtek Supreme XTE, Grengloo and Transbond LR presented residual TEGDMA. Conclusions Light‐cured composite resins are slightly cytotoxic opposite GFs and release many components including BPA and TEGDMA. Clinical precautions should be taken to decrease the release of these monomers.

show abstract

“…53 Similarly, the development of novel antimicrobial biomaterials promises benefits for DME once the challenges of biocompatibility and controlled release of antimicrobial agents are overcome. 54,55 Furthermore, following case reports demonstrating favorable outcomes of a novel technique, a clinical trial is investigating the performance of RBC restorations placed on calcium-silicate cement applied in marginal defects extending to the alveolar crest. 56 Currently available data do not provide conclusive evidence on which adhesive strategy is most appropriate for DME.…”

Section: Sequence Of Restorative Procedures In In Vitro/in Silico Stu...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deep margin elevation—Present status and future directions

Eggmann

Ayub

Conejo

et al. 2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Deep margin elevation (DME) is a treatment approach to relocate the cervical margin of teeth with subgingival defects to a supragingival position with a direct restoration to facilitate rubber dam isolation, impression taking, and bonding of indirect restorations. This article provides an overview of the current scientific evidence on DME and future directions for research. Overview:The review included 38 studies on DME, most conducted in vitro. These studies indicate that DME has no detrimental effect on the fracture resistance of restored teeth. Evidence on the impact of DME on marginal quality is conflicting, but most in vitro studies observed no negative effect. Clinical studies, most comprising small patient cohorts, demonstrated favorable restorative outcomes and suggest that DME restorations made with scrupulous care are compatible with periodontal health. Bleeding on probing may occur more frequently at sites with DME, though evidence on this is not unequivocal.Conclusions: Current evidence, based largely on laboratory studies and limited clinical data, supports DME as a viable approach to restore teeth with localized subgingival defects. However, further clinical studies with long-term follow-ups are required to provide corroborative evidence.Clinical Significance: Current evidence suggests that DME is a viable approach to restore teeth with localized subgingival defects as a possible alternative to surgical crown lengthening. Proper working field isolation, meticulous care in the bonding and buildup procedure, and biofilm removal through patient-performed oral hygiene and professional maintenance care are crucial. As scant clinical trial-based evidence is available today, further research is needed to evaluate the long-term performance of DME restorations and their impact on periodontal health.

show abstract

Biological evaluation of subgingivally placed direct resin composite materials

Cited by 5 publications

References 28 publications

Comparative evaluation of three nanofilled resin-based dental composites: Cytotoxicity, surface roughness, and flexural properties

Comparative evaluation of three nanofilled resin-based dental composites: Cytotoxicity, surface roughness, and flexural properties

Cytotoxicity evaluation of dental and orthodontic light‐cured composite resins

Deep margin elevation—Present status and future directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About