Biocompatibility of different resin composites after polymerization with two light curing units: an immunohistochemical study

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the biocompatibility of two different resin composites after polymerization under two different light sources in three different time periods. Materials and Methods: 72 polyethylene tubes polymerized with 2 different resin composites and 2 different light sources (Elipar S10 and Valo ) [Group 1: Kalore Elipar S10 (KE), Group 2: Kalore Valo (KV), Group 3: Essentia Elipar S10 (EE), Group 4: Essentia Valo (EV)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 18 rats. 24 empty polyethylene tubes [Group 5: (Control group)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 6 rats. Then, the rats were sacrificed after 7th, 15th and 30th days in each time intervals (n=8). Biopsy samples were stained with H&E and examined for inflammation, necrosis, macrophage infiltrate, giant cell and fibrous capsule criteria. Immunohistochemical staining was performed to evaluate proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-8). Results: When the composite groups and the control groups were compared; there was difference statistically significant for the criteria of inflammation at 7th and 15th days, there was no statistical difference between the time points in terms of fibrous capsule and necrosis. When the composite groups and control groups were evaluated in terms of proinflammatory cytokines; statistically significant differences were found at 7th, 15th and 30th days. Conclusion: All CRs used in this study showed acceptable biocompatibility in the subcutaneous tissues of rats after polymerization with different light sources.

Keywords

• Composite resins
• light sources
• biocompatibility
• rat
• immunohistochemistry

References

1. Ergün G, Eğilmez F, Üçtaşli M, Yilmaz Ş. Effect of light curing ty of dentine bonding agents. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 216-23. google scholar
2. Halvorson RH, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. Energy dependent polymerization of resin-based composite. Dent Mater 2002; 18: 463-9. google scholar
3. Ergun G, Egilmez F, Cekic-Nagas I. The effect of light curing units and modes on cytotoxicity of resin-core systems. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010; 15: 962-8. google scholar
4. Feiz A, Arbabzadeh Zavareh F, Mohammad Razavi S, Badrian H, Dolatyar S, Vajihi M. Reaction of rat subcutaneous connective tissue to resin composites polymerized with different light curing units and different lightening methods. Int J Dent 2012; 2012. google scholar
5. Munksgaard EC, Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Elution of TEGDMA and BisGMA from a resin and a resin composite cured with halogen or plasma light. Eur J Oral Sci 2000; 108: 341-5 google scholar
6. Filipov IA, Vladimirov SB. Residual monomer in a composite resin after light-curing with different sources, light intensities and spectra of radiation. Braz Dent J 2006; 17: 34-8. google scholar
7. Ergun G, Egilmez F, Yilmaz S. Effect of reduced exposure times on the cytotoxicity of resin luting cements cured by high-power led. J Appl Oral Sci 2011; 19: 286-92. google scholar
8. Yap AU, Saw T, Cao T, Ng MM. Composite cure and pulp-cell cytotoxicity associated with LED curing lights. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 92-9. google scholar

9. Tunç EŞ, Oezer L, Sarı Ş, Cetiner S. Cytotoxic effects of halogen and light emitting diode cured compomers on human pulp fibroblasts. Int J Paediatr Dent 2009; 19: 55-60. google scholar
10. Knezevic A, Tarle Z, Meniga A, Sutalo J, Pichler G. Influence of light intensity from different curing units upon composite temperature rise. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32: 362-7. google scholar
11. Gonzâlez-Lopez JA, Perez-Mondragon AA, Cuevas-Suâ rez CE, T rejo-Carbajal N, Herrera-Gonzâlez AM. Evaluation of dental composites resins formulated with non-toxic monomers derived from catechol. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2020; 104: 103613. google scholar
12. Neves SO, Magalhâes LMD, Correa JD, Dutra WO, Gollob KJ, Silva TA, et al. Composite-derived monomers affect cell viability and cytokine expression in human leukocytes stimulated with Porphyromonas gingivalis. J Appl Oral Sci 2019; 27. google scholar
13. Jun S-K, Cha J-R, Knowles JC, Kim H-W, Lee J-H, Lee H-H. Development of Bis-GMA-free biopolymer to avoid estrogenicity. Dent Mater 2020; 36: 157-66. google scholar
14. Shinkai K, Taira Y, Kawashima S, Suzuki S, Suzuki M. Histological evaluation of direct pulp capping with all-in-one adhesives in rat teeth. Dent Mater J 2017; 36: 348-56. google scholar
15. Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S, Matinlinna JP, Yiu CK, King NM. Biocompatibility of various dental materials in contemporary dentistry: a narrative insight. J Investig Clin Dent 2013; 4: 9-19. google scholar
16. Castaneda ERD, Silva LA, Gaton-Hernândez P, Consolaro A, Rodriguez EG, Silva RA, et al. FiltekTM Silorane and FiltekTM Supreme XT resins: tissue reaction after subcutaneous implantation in isogenic mice. Braz Dent J 2011; 22: 105-10. google scholar
17. Kamalak H, Kamalak A, Taghizadehghalehjoughi A, Hacımüftüoğlu A, Nalcı KA. Cytotoxic and biological effects of bulk fill composites on rat cortical neuron cells. Odontology 2018; 106: 377-88. google scholar
18. Ilday NO, Celik N, Dilsiz A, Alp HH, Aydin T, Seven N, et al. The effects of silorane composites on levels of cytokines and periodontal parameters. Contemp Clin Dent 2013; 4: 437. google scholar
19. De Matos LL, Trufelli DC, De Matos MGL, da Silva Pinhal MA. Immunohistochemistry as an important tool in biomarkers detection and clinical practice. Biomark 2010; 5: BMI. S2185. google scholar
20. Koyuturk AE, Ozmen B, Tokay U, Tuloglu N, Sari ME, Sonmez TT. Two-year follow-up of indirect posterior composite restorations of permanent teeth with excessive material loss in pediatric patients: a clinical study. J Adhes Dent 2013; 15: 583-90. google scholar
21. Reichl F, Seiss M, Kleinsasser N, Kehe K, Kunzelmann K, Thomas P, et al. Distribution and excretion of BisGMA in guinea pigs. J Dent Res 2008; 87: 378-80. google scholar
22. Van Landuyt K, Nawrot T, Geebelen B, De Munck J, Snauwaert J, Yoshihara K, et al. How much do resin-based dental materials release? A meta-analytical approach. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 723-47. google scholar
23. Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G. Effect of chemical structure on degree of conversion in light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomaterials 2002; 23: 1819-29. google scholar
24. Almeida Mesquita J, Lacerda Santos R, Pina Godoy G, Franscisco Weege Nonaka C, Muniz Alves P. Morphological and immunohistochemical analysis of the biocompatibility of resin modified cements. Micros Res Tech 2017; 80: 504-10. google scholar
25. Chan JK. The wonderful colors of the hematoxylin-eosin stain in diagnostic surgical pathology. Int J Surg Pathol 2014; 22: 12-32. google scholar
26. Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D. Biocompatibility of dental r terials: Springer; 2009. google scholar
27. Seiss M, Langer C, Hickel R, Reichl F-X. Quantitative determination of TEGDMA, BHT, and DMABEE in eluates from polymerized resin-based dental restorative materials by use of GC/MS. Arch Toxicol 2009; 83: 1109-15. google scholar
28. Lee DH, Lim B-S, Lee Y-K, Ahn S-J, Yang H-C. Involvement of oxidative stress in mutagenicity and apoptosis caused by dental resin monomers in cell cultures. Dent Mater caused by denl 2006; 22:1086-92. google scholar
29. Ratanasathien S, Wataha J, Hanks C, Dennison J. Cytotoxic interactive effects of dentin bonding components on mouse fibroblasts. J Dent Res 1995; 74: 1602-6. google scholar
30. Obici A, Sinhoreti M, De Goes M, Consani S, Sobrinho L. Effect of the photo-activation method on polymerization shrinkage of restorative composites. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 192-8. google scholar
31. Peutzfeldt A, Sahafi A, Asmussen E. Characterization of resin composites polymerized with plasma arc curing units. Dent Mater 2000; 16: 330-6. google scholar
32. Jandt K, Mills R, Blackwell G, Ashworth S. Depth of cure and compressive strength of dental composites cured with blue light emitting diodes (LEDs). Dent Mater 2000; 16: 41 google scholar
33. Ibraguimov A, Owens L, Su J, Tang L. Stability analysis of a model for foreign body fibrotic reactions. Comput Math Methods Med 2012; 2012. google scholar
34. Black J. Biological performance of materials: fundamentals of biocompatibility: Crc Press; 2005. google scholar
35. Lv F, Zhu L, Zhang J, Yu J, Cheng X, Peng B. Evaluation of the in vitro biocompatibility of a new fast setting ready to use root filling and repair material. Int Endod J 2017; 50: 540-8. google scholar
36. Alshali RZ, Silikas N, Satterthwaite JD. Degree of conversion of bulk-fill compared to conventional resin-composites at two time intervals. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 213-7. google scholar
37. Lagocka R, Jakubowska K, Chlubek D, Buczkowska-Radlinska J. Elution study of unreacted TEGDMA from bulk-fill composite (SDR™ Dentsply) using HPLC. Adv Med Sci 2015; 60: 191-8. google scholar
38. Kochanowski A, Hoene A, Patrzyk M, Walschus U, Finke B, Luthringer B, et al. Examination of the inflammatory response following implantation of titanium plates coated with phospholipids in rats. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 2011; 22: 1015. google scholar
39. Yamanaka Y, Shigetani Y, Yoshiba K, Kaneko T, Yoshiba N, Okiji T. Evaluation of the responses of MHC class II molecule-expressing cells and macrophages to epoxy resin-based and 4-META-containing, methacrylate resin-based root canal sealers in rat subcutaneous tissue. Dent Mater J 2013; 32: 822-7. google scholar
40. Yamanaka Y, Shigetani Y, Yoshiba K, Yoshiba N, Okiji T. Immunohistochemical analysis of subcutaneous tissue reactions to methacrylate resin based root canal sealers. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 669-75. google scholar
41. Hauman C, Love R. Biocompatibility of dental materials used in contemporary endodontic therapy: a review. Part 1. Intracanal drugs and substances. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 75-85. google scholar
42. Hauman C, Love R. Biocompatibility of dental materials used in contemporary endodontic therapy: a review. Part 2. Root-canal-filling materials. Inter Endod J 2003; 36: 147-60. google scholar
43. Sönmez NS, Sönmez E, Akçaboy C. Evaluation of biocompatibility of Targis Dentin and Artglass by using subcutaneous implantation test. Indian J Dent Res 2010; 21: 537. google scholar
44. Silva ECA, Tanomaru-Filho M, da Silva GF, Delfino MM, Cerri PS, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM. Biocompatibility and Bioactive Potential of New Calcium Silicate-based Endodontic Sealers: Bio-C Sealer and Sealer Plus BC. J Endod 2020; 46: 1470-7. google scholar
45. King DF, King LA. A brief historical note on staining by hematoxylin and eosin. Am J google scholar
46. ronza BM, Rueggeberg FA, Braga RR, Mogilevych B, Soares LES, Martin AA, et al. Monomer conversion, microhardness, internal marginal adaptation, and shrinkage stress of bulk-fill resin composites. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1542-51. google scholar
47. Manojlovic D, Dramicanin MD, Miletic V, Mitic-Culafic D, Jovanovic B, Nikolic B. Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of a low-shrinkage monomer and monoacylphosphine oxide_Comparative analyses of individual toxicity and combination effects in mixtures. Dent Mater 2017 google scholar
48. Cramer N, Stansbury J, Bowman C. Recent advances and developments in composite dental restorative materials. J Dent Res 2011; 90: 402-16. google scholar
49. Silva GAB, Gava E, Lanza LD, Estrela C, Alves JB. Subclinical failures of direct pulp pulps capped with a self-etching adhesive system. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 230-40. google scholar