Variability in Cytotoxicity and Fluoride Release of Resin-modified Glass-ionomer Cements

Kan, Karen; Messer, Louise Brearley; Messer, Harold H.

doi:10.1177/00220345970760081301

Cited by 53 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two rmGlCs (VitrebondiM and Vitremeri\'( reduced protein synthesis of human gingival fibroblasts by 00°o, whereas the four tested conventional GlCs caused significantly less inhibition of protein synthesis. Severe cytotoxicity of Vitremert'N in perma nent 3T3 fibroblasts was also found by Kan et al (1997).…”

Section: (Vi) Dentin Adhesives (A) Composition and Release Of Substancesmentioning

confidence: 86%

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

Section: (Vi) Dentin Adhesives (A) Composition and Release Of Substancesmentioning

confidence: 86%

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

“…24 Fluoride release and cytotoxicity were correlated, although the fluoride release did not account for the cytotoxicity observed. In their opinion, there were factors other than fluoride responsible for the cytotoxicity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of selected conventional glass ionomer cements on human gingival fibroblasts

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[29][30][31] Although the fluoride-release potential of GICs has often been cited as a reason to use this material and its derivatives for the restoration of primary teeth, it should be noted that the amount of fluoride released varies between brands. 32 In the present study, fissure sealant was applied after etching, to both the remaining pits and fissures and also to the set surface of the RMGIC. Sidhu and Sherriff, 33 and Ribeiro 34 showed that the susceptibility of GIC material to dehydration had not been significantly reduced by the addition of resin in RMGIC, and suggested that surface protection helps with water balance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice

Roberts¹,

Attari²,

Sherriff³

2005

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To prospectively report on the survival of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), photac-fil and pre-formed stainless steel crown (SSC) restorations in primary molar teeth placed over a seven-year period in a specialist paediatric dental practice under private contract of remuneration. Method All primary molar restorations placed by a specialist paediatric dentist over a seven-year period were reviewed and the outcome results recorded. Data were recorded at review visits until June 30, 2003. Data recorded included Class I restorations, Class II restorations and SSC. The Class II cavities were either mesial or distal, with or without buccal/palatal extensions. If both proximal surfaces were decayed or if after cavity preparation the resultant outline form was significantly larger than the minimal classical form, RMGIC was not used; an SSC was placed instead. Stainless steel crown preparation followed conventional guidelines. The crowns were cemented with reinforced zinc oxide and eugenol (Kalzinol). The status was recorded as satisfactory restoration, tooth exfoliated, tooth extracted for orthodontic reasons with the date of extraction, or needing replacement. If replaced then the reason for replacement was also recorded. Results A total of 544 Class I RMGICs, 962 Class II RMGICs, and 1,010 SSCs were placed. At the last review of each restoration, 98.3% of Class I, 97.3% of Class II RMGICs and 97.0% of SSCs were either satisfactory or withdrawn intact. Conclusion Under the conditions of private specialist practice-based study SSCs continued to prove very successful for the restoration of larger cavities and for pulp-treated primary molar teeth. For the smaller cavities RMGIC were also very successful.

show abstract

Variability in Cytotoxicity and Fluoride Release of Resin-modified Glass-ionomer Cements

Cited by 53 publications

References 20 publications

Biocompatibility of Resin-Modified Filling Materials

Biocompatibility of Resin-Modified Filling Materials

Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of selected conventional glass ionomer cements on human gingival fibroblasts

The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars, placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About