Formaldehyde release from root‐canal sealers: influence of method

Koch, Martin Jean

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00173.x

Cited by 25 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of the chemistry of the epoxy amines, the material no longer releases toxic substances like formaldehyde (Leonardo et al . 1999) compared to AH26 (Koch 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Bacterial and fungal microleakage of AH26 and AH Plus root canal sealers

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because of the chemistry of the epoxy amines, the material no longer releases toxic substances like formaldehyde (Leonardo et al . 1999) compared to AH26 (Koch 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Bacterial and fungal microleakage of AH26 and AH Plus root canal sealers

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[12]. Cohen et al (1998) and Koch (1999) IJOMEH 2014;27(5) 799 Vellinge, Sweden). Lack of anti-allergic medication constituted a mandatory condition before placing the patches and during the testing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result they have demonstrated that all materials showed the highest release of formaldehyde in the case of freshly mixed samples [13,14]. Both MMA and formaldehyde have been often associated with local allergic reactions in the patients' oral mucosa as a result of contact with prosthetic and orthodontic devices [15].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Concomitant contact allergy to formaldehyde and methacrylic monomers in students of dental medicine and dental patients

Lyapina¹,

Dencheva²,

Krasteva³

et al. 2014

IJOMEH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: A multitude of acrylic monomers is used in dentistry. Formaldehyde is a ubiquitous chemical agent, which is an ingredient of some dental materials and may be released from methacrylate-based composites. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the incidence and the risk of cross-sensitization to some methacrylic monomers (methylmethacrylate -MMA, triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate -TEGDMA, ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate -EGDMA, 2,2-bis-[4-(2-hydroxy-3-methacrylo-xypropoxy)phenyl]-propane -Bis-GMA, 2-hydroxy-ethyl methacrylate 2-HEMA, and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate) and formaldehyde in students of dentistry, dental professionals and dental patients. Material and Methods: A total of 139 participants were included in the study, i.e., occupationally exposed dental professionals, students of the 3rd, 4th and 6th year of dental medicine, and occupationally unexposed dental patients. They were patch-tested with methacrylic monomers and formaldehyde. The results were subjected to statistical analysis (p < 0.05). Results: From the allergic to formaldehyde students of the 3rd and 4th year of dental medicine, 46.2% were also sensitized to MMA. Among the group of patients, the incidence of cross-sensitization to formaldehyde and methacrylic monomers was as follows: to TEGDMA -20.6%, to ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate -20.7%, to 2-HEMA -20.7% and to tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate -24.1%. Contact allergy to MMA was diagnosed among 22.7%, and to TEGDMA -among 27.1% of the students of the 3rd and 4th year of dental medicine. In the group of occupationally unexposed dental patients the prevalence of contact allergy to ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate was 20.7%, to Bis-GMA -27.6%, to 2-HEMA -44.9% and to tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate -38.0%. Conclusions:The students of the 3rd and 4th year of dental medicine could be outlined as a group at risk of sensitization to MMA and TEGDMA and of cross-sensitization to MMA and formaldehyde. Probably, due to the ubiquitous occurrence of formaldehyde and the wide use of composite resins and bonding agents containing TEGDMA, ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate, 2-HEMA and tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate in dentistry, the group of dental patients could be at risk of cross-sensitization to formaldehyde and some methacrylic monomers.

show abstract

“…The remaining methods involve an initial reaction with colorimetric reagents to form formaldehyde adducts which are then analyzed by their ultraviolet absorption spectra, generally after removing other components by HPLC (Cohen et al . , Koch , Koch et al . ).…”

Section: Quantification Of Formaldehydementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In another study, Koch () determined that 8 mg of formaldehyde was produced per gram of AH 26 immediately after mixing and this then reduced to <1 mg g −1 after 48 h. Utilizing the highest formaldehyde release (8 mg formaldehyde g −1 ), the amount of formaldehyde released in a typical root canal filling with 7.5 mg sealer would be 0.06 mg of formaldehyde, which is 1/40 of the normal endogenous levels in all humans and 1/175 of the WHO () daily intake value. The formaldehyde amount falls to zero after 2 weeks as discussed earlier.…”

Section: Quantification Of Formaldehydementioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the effects of formaldehyde release from endodontic materials

Athanassiadis¹,

George

Abbott

et al. 2014

Int Endodontic J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formaldehyde is present in most living cells and the environment. In dentistry, patients may be exposed to formaldehyde through the use of several endodontic materials (e.g. AH 26) and during formocresol pulpotomies. This review outlines how the human body reacts to formaldehyde exposure, how recent data has relooked at the issue of carcinogenicity and leukaemia associated with formaldehyde, and whether it is possible to quantify the amount of formaldehyde produced by endodontic cements. The review analyses the way formaldehyde is produced from epoxy resins and addresses the question of whether the amount of formaldehyde from endodontic cements is large enough to override the body's ability to deal with its own endogenous levels of formaldehyde and should the amount of formaldehyde produced be a concern.

show abstract

Formaldehyde release from root‐canal sealers: influence of method

Abstract: From the results of this study it is difficult to define a standardized in-vitro test that can be applied universally for the definitive determination of formaldehyde release from endodontic sealers. Prediction of in-vivo formaldehyde release from endodontic sealers is difficult.

Cited by 25 publications

References 29 publications

Bacterial and fungal microleakage of AH26 and AH Plus root canal sealers

Bacterial and fungal microleakage of AH26 and AH Plus root canal sealers

Concomitant contact allergy to formaldehyde and methacrylic monomers in students of dental medicine and dental patients

A review of the effects of formaldehyde release from endodontic materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About