2019
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-03131-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In vitro and in silico evaluations of resin-based dental restorative material toxicity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
10
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
2
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The consequences of both the manufacturing and polymerization processes, as well as the resin’s biodegradation, include various adverse effects on the oral health (irritation, inflammation, and allergic responses of the oral cavity tissues) due mainly to the release of potential cytotoxic components from the polymer network. Observations similar to the above-presented findings are also contained in the relatively recent study of Bandarra et al (2020) [ 48 ], which evaluated the cytocompatibility and the neurotoxic potential of the monomers for three interim conventional restoration materials, (Tab 2000, Kerr, USA (methyl methacrylate based), ProTemp 4, 3M, USA (bis-acrylic based), and Structur 3, Voco GmbH, Germany (urethane dimethacrylate/UDMA based)). The results of this study suggest that urethane dimethacrylate–based resin, even at low concentrations, may cause adverse local (oral) side effects and may have neurotoxic potential.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…The consequences of both the manufacturing and polymerization processes, as well as the resin’s biodegradation, include various adverse effects on the oral health (irritation, inflammation, and allergic responses of the oral cavity tissues) due mainly to the release of potential cytotoxic components from the polymer network. Observations similar to the above-presented findings are also contained in the relatively recent study of Bandarra et al (2020) [ 48 ], which evaluated the cytocompatibility and the neurotoxic potential of the monomers for three interim conventional restoration materials, (Tab 2000, Kerr, USA (methyl methacrylate based), ProTemp 4, 3M, USA (bis-acrylic based), and Structur 3, Voco GmbH, Germany (urethane dimethacrylate/UDMA based)). The results of this study suggest that urethane dimethacrylate–based resin, even at low concentrations, may cause adverse local (oral) side effects and may have neurotoxic potential.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…The cytotoxicity assay evaluated the overall effect of the biomaterials on normal, human cell lines in vitro. Human dermal fibroblasts, as well as mouse 3T3 fibroblasts [37] or L929 fibroblasts [38], were previously employed for dental materials testing [39,40,41], since the cytotoxic effect is similar to that exerted on oral fibroblasts, while the HUVECs [42] were used for comparison, because they are fetal cells that can mimic the stem cells behavior when exposed to eluted substances from the tested biomaterials.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…NIH/3T3 (Swiss mouse embryo) fibroblasts (93061524, Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA) were sub-cultured in Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium (DMEM, Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA) supplemented with 10% of fetal bovine serum (FBS, Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA) and 1% penicillin-streptomycin solution (10,000 U•mL −1 of penicillin and 10 mg•mL −1 of streptomycin, Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA) using T75 flasks with filter caps (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Kandel, Germany). The cells were grown in a humidified incubator at 37 • C in air containing 5% CO 2 , as described elsewhere [47]. Morphological examinations of cells were performed daily using an inverted light microscope (Axiovert ® 25, ZEISS Microscopy, Jena, Germany).…”
Section: Cytotoxicity Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%