Comparison of the intraosseous biocompatibility of dyract and super EBA

Pertot, Wilhelm-Joseph; Stephan, Grégory; Tardieu, C; Proust, Jean‐Pierre

doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(97)80413-x

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cytotoxic potency of polyacid-modified composite resins varied considerably depending on the product tested (Pertot et al, 1997;Geurtsen et al, 1998b (Figs. 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b).…”

Section: (G) Pulp Studies In Animals and Humansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility of Resin-Modified Filling Materials

Geurtsen

2000

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

360

258

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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,

show abstract

“…The cytotoxic potency of polyacid-modified composite resins varied considerably depending on the product tested (Pertot et al, 1997;Geurtsen et al, 1998b (Figs. 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b).…”

Section: (G) Pulp Studies In Animals and Humansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility of Resin-Modified Filling Materials

Geurtsen

2000

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

360

258

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Due to its thixotropicity, which enables the material to diminish its viscosity when put under stress, it is more likely to be extruded into the periapical tissue after application [13]. When compared to AHPlus, the gutta percha based sealer is significantly less cytotoxic, when assessing the viability and the proliferation of cells by means of the MTT-test (3-(4,5-Dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5diphenyltetrazoliumbromid) [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tissue reaction to sealing materials: different view at biocompatibility

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biodegradability of root canal sealers in areas other than the root canal system is crucial to the overall success rate of endodontic treatment. The aim of the present study was to investigate, the cell and tissue reaction to GuttaFlow and AHPlus, both in vitro and in vivo. For the in vitro experiments the materials were incubated with Human Periodontal Ligament Fibroblasts and cell proliferation and cytotoxicity analyses were performed. Additional fluorescence-microscope stainings were carried out in order to visualize cell growth and morphology. For assessment of the tissue reaction to the materials a subcutaneous implantation model in Wistar rats was employed and the inflammatory response to the materials was visualized by means of general and specific histology after 6 weeks. Human gingival fibroblasts proliferation seemed to be dependent upon dental material and cultivation time. After an incubation period of 96 hrs AHPlus proved to be significantly (p < 0.002) more cytotoxic than GuttaFlow, as only a small number of fibroblasts survived on AHPlus. In vivo, GuttaFlow was surrounded by a fibrous capsule and no degradation took place, while AHPlus induced a well-vascularized granulation tissue in which the material was phagocyted by macrophages. The results of this study demonstrate that a potential cytotoxic effect of a sealing material may beneficial in order to have antibacterial properties and induce self degradation when accidentally extruded over the apical foramen.

show abstract

“…Many materials have been proposed as root-end fillings, including amalgam, guttapercha, zinc-oxide-eugenol cements, composite resin with and without bonding agent, polycarboxylate cement, glass ionomer cement, compomers, resin-modified glass ionomers, 4-META-TBB resin cements, and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (1)(2)(3)(4)(5).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%