Biocompatibility of prosthodontic materials and test methods

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 33 Sayı: 3, 145 - 52, 18.08.2016

İrem Türkcan Asude Dilek Nalbant

https://doi.org/10.17214/aot.05383

Cited By: 1

Öz

Various materials with different features and content are widely used in dentistry. While fulfilling their aesthetic and functional tasks, these materials are in contact with oral tissues and fluids. Therefore, besides physical and mechanical properties, biocompatibility also is a required property for these materials. Biomaterials are non-vital materials placed on or inside the human body, and interact with biological systems. Dental materials placed in the mouth are also considered as biomaterials. Biocompatibility is the ability of a material to perform with an appropriate host response when applied as intended. There are various test methods and protocols to evaluate the biological response generated by a dental material. Initial in vitro tests resulting in satisfactory findings are followed by more comprehensive in vivo animal tests and clinical usage tests. The aim of this report is to review biocompatibility test methods and the biocompatibility of prosthodontic materials in the light of previous studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Acrylic resins, biocompatibility, ceramics, dental alloys

Dental protetik materyallerin biyolojik uyumluluğu ve test yöntemleri

Öz

Diş hekimliği alanında farklı özellik ve içeriklere sahip çeşitli materyaller kullanılmaktadır. Bu materyaller, estetik ve fonksiyonel görevlerini yerine getirirken, ağız dokuları ve sıvılarıyla temas halindedir. Bu nedenle, kullanılan materyallerin fiziksel ve mekanik özelliklerinin yanı sıra, biyolojik olarak uyumlu olmaları aranılan en temel özelliktir. Biyomateryal, insan vücudu üzerine veya içerisine yerleştirilen ve biyolojik sistemle etkileşim halinde olan cansız materyaldir. Ağız içerisine yerleştirilen dental materyaller de biyomateryaller kapsamında yer almaktadır. Biyouyumluluk, belirli bir uygulamada bir materyalin, uygulandığı bölgede uygun bir konak cevabı oluşturabilme yeteneği olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Ağız içerisinde kullanılacak materyallerin oluşturacağı biyolojik cevabın önceden değerlendirilmesi gerekmektedir. Bu amaçla çeşitli test yöntemleri geliştirilmiş ve protokoller belirlenmiştir. Çoğunlukla hücre kültürlerinin kullanıldığı in vitro testler ile değerlendirilen materyaller, tatmin edici sonuçlar elde edildiği takdirde daha kapsamlı olan hayvan testlerine (in vivo) ve ardından son basamak olan klinik testlere tabi tutulmalıdır. Bu derlemenin amacı, biyouyumluluk test yöntemlerinin ve son yıllarda yapılan çalışmaların ışığında dental protetik materyallerin biyolojik uyumunun değerlendirilmesidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akrilik rezinleri, biyo-uyumluluk testi, diş alaşımları, seramikler

Kaynakça

• de Andrade Lima Chaves C, de Souza Costa CA, Vergani CE, Chaves de Souza PP, Machado AL. Effects of soft denture liners on L929 fibroblasts, HaCaT keratinocytes, and RAW 264.7 macrophages. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:840613.
• Song YH, Song HJ, Han MK, Yang HS, Park YJ. Cytotoxicity of soft denture lining materials depending on their component types. Int J Prosthodont 2014;27:229-35.
• Chaves CA, Vergani CE, Thomas D, Young A, Costa CA, Salih VM, et al. Biological effects of soft denture reline materials on L929 cells in vitro. J Tissue Eng 2014;5:2041731414540911.
• Neves CB, Lopes LP, Ferrão HF, Miranda JP, Castro MF, Bettencourt AF. Ethanol postpolymerization treatment for improving the biocompatibility of acrylic reline resins. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:485246.
• Atay A, Bozok Cetintas V, Cal E, Kosova B, Kesercioglu A, Guneri P. Cytotoxicity of hard and soft denture lining materials. Dent Mater J 2012;31:1082-6.
• Tay LY, Herrera DR, Quishida CC, Carlos IZ, Jorge JH. Effect of water storage and heat treatment on the cytotoxicity of soft liners. Gerodontology 2012;29:e275-80.
• Ozdemir KG, Yilmaz H, Yilmaz S. In vitro evaluation of cytotoxicity of soft lining materials on L929 cells by MTT assay. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;90:82-6.
• Ata SO, Yavuzyilmaz H. In vitro comparison of the cytotoxicity of acetal resin, heat-polymerized resin, and auto-polymerized resin as denture base materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;91:905-9.
• Melilli D, Currò G, Perna AM, Cassaro A. Cytotoxicity of four types of resins used for removable denture bases: in vitro comparative analysis. Minerva Stomatol 2009;58:425-34.
• Ebadian B, Razavi M, Soleimanpour S, Mosharraf R. Evaluation of tissue reaction to some denture-base materials: an animal study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:67-74.
• Aalto-Korte K, Alanko K, Kuuliala O, Jolanki R. Methacrylate and acrylate allergy in dental personnel. Contact Dermatitis 2007;57:324- 30.
• Sipahi C, Ozen J, Ural AU, Dalkiz M, Beydemir B. The effect of two fibre impregnation methods on the cytotoxicity of a glass and carbon fibre-reinforced acrylic resin denture base material on oral epithelial cells and fibroblasts. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:666-73.
• Jorge JH, Giampaolo ET, Vergani CE, Pavarina AC, Machado AL, Carlos IZ. Effect of microwave postpolymerization treatment and of storage time in water on the cytotoxicity of denture base and reline acrylic resins. Quintessence Int 2009;40:e93-100.
• Jorge JH, Giampaolo ET, Vergani CE, Machado AL, Pavarina AC, Carlos IZ. Biocompatibility of denture base acrylic resins evaluated in culture of L929 cells. Effect of polymerisation cycle and post-polymerisation treatments. Gerodontology 2007;24:52-7.
• Jorge JH, Giampaolo ET, Vergani CE, Machado AL, Pavarina AC, Carlos IZ. Effect of post-polymerization heat treatments on the cytotoxicity of two denture base acrylic resins. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14:203-7.
• Jorge JH, Giampaolo ET, Vergani CE, Machado AL, Pavarina AC, Carlos IZ. Cytotoxicity of denture base resins: effect of water bath and microwave postpolymerization heat treatments. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:340-4.
• Gautam R, Singh RD, Sharma VP, Siddhartha R, Chand P, Kumar R.Biocompatibility of polymethylmethacrylate resins used in dentistry. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2012;100:1444-50.
• Chaves CA, Machado AL, Vergani CE, de Souza RF, Giampaolo ET. Cytotoxicity of denture base and hard chairside reline materials: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:114-27.
• Pandey AK, Pati F, Mandal D, Dhara S, Biswas K. In vitro evaluation of osteoconductivity and cellular response of zirconia and alumina based ceramics. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2013;33:3923-30.
• Mai R, Kunert-Keil C, Grafe A, Gedrange T, Lauer G, Dominiak M, et al. Histological behaviour of zirconia implants: an experiment in rats. Ann Anat 2012;194:561-6.
• Kılıç K, Kesim B, Sümer Z, Polat Z, Öztürk A. Tam seramik materyallerinin biyouyumluluğunun MTT testi ile incelenmesi. Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 2010;19:125-32.
• Brackett MG, Lockwood PE, Messer RL, Lewis JB, Bouillaguet S, Wataha JC. In vitro cytotoxic response to lithium disilicate dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2008;24:450-6.
• Messer RL, Lockwood PE, Wataha JC, Lewis JB, Norris S, Bouillaguet S. In vitro cytotoxicity of traditional versus contemporary dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:452-8.
• Möller B, Terheyden H, Açil Y, Purcz NM, Hertrampf K, Tabakov A, et al. A comparison of biocompatibility and osseointegration of ceramic and titanium implants: an in vivo and in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;41:638-45.
• Sabaliauskas V, Juciute R, Bukelskiene V, Rutkunas V, Trumpaite Vanagiene R, Puriene A. In vitro evaluation of cytotoxicity of permanent prosthetic materials. Stomatologija 2011;13:75-80.
• Wang X, Xia Y, Liu L, Liu M, Gu N, Guang H, et al. Comparison of MTT assay, flow cytometry, and RT-PCR in the evaluation of cytotoxicity of five prosthodontic materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2010;95:357-64.
• Ko HC, Han JS, Bächle M, Jang JH, Shin SW, Kim DJ. Initial osteoblast-like cell response to pure titanium and zirconia/alumina ceramics. Dent Mater 2007;23:1349-55.
• Pera P, Conserva E, Pin D, Acquaviva A, Riboldi A, Mariottini GL, et al. Cytotoxicity in vitro analysis of ceramic materials for ‘’metal free’’ prosthetic substructures. Minerva Stomatol 2005;54:363-71.
• Sjögren G, Sletten G, Dahl JE. Cytotoxicity of dental alloys, metals, and ceramics assessed by millipore filter, agar overlay, and MTT tests. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:229-36.
• Naddeo P, Laino L, La Noce M, Piattelli A, De Rosa A, Iezzi G, et al. Surface biocompatibility of differently textured titanium implants with mesenchymal stem cells. Dent Mater 2015;31:235-43.
• Zhang E, Zheng L, Liu J, Bai B, Liu C. Influence of Cu content on the cell biocompatibility of Ti-Cu sintered alloys. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2015;46:148-57.
• Camacho-Alonso F, Sánchez-Siles M, Gilbel-Del Águila O. No Evidence of Genotoxic Damage in a Group of Patients with Titanium Dental Implants and Different Metal Restorations in the Oral Cavity. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:811-21.
• Meng B, Chen J, Guo D, Ye Q, Liang X. The effect of titanium particles on rat bone marrow stem cells in vitro. Toxicol Mech Methods 2009;19:552-8.
• Ribeiro DA, Matsumoto MA, Padovan LE, Marques ME, Salvadori DM. Genotoxicity of corrosion eluates obtained from endosseous implants. Implant Dent 2007;16:101-9.
• Ristic L, Vucevic D, Radovic L, Djordjevic S, Nikacevic M, Colic M. Corrosive and cytotoxic properties of compact specimens and microparticles of Ni-Cr dental alloy. J Prosthodont 2014;23:221-6.
• McGinley EL, Moran GP, Fleming GJ. Biocompatibility effects of indirect exposure of base-metal dental casting alloys to a human-derived three-dimensional oral mucosal model. J Dent 2013;41:1091-100.
• McGinley EL, Moran GP, Fleming GJ. Base-metal dental casting alloy biocompatibility assessment using a human-derived three-dimensional oral mucosal model. Acta Biomater 2012;8:432-8.
• Baričević M, Ratkaj I, Mladinić M, Zelježić D, Kraljević SP, Lončar B, et al. In vivo assessment of DNA damage induced in oral mucosa cells by fixed and removable metal prosthodontic appliances.Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:325-31.
• McGinley EL, Coleman DC, Moran GP, Fleming GJ. Effects of surface finishing conditions on the biocompatibility of a nickel-chromium dental casting alloy. Dent Mater 2011;27:637-50.
• Sarantopoulos DM, Beck KA, Holsen R, Berzins DW. Corrosion of CoCr and NiCr dental alloys alloyed with palladium. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:35-43.
• Rao SB, Chowdhary R. Evaluation on the corrosion of the three nicr alloys with different composition. Int J Dent 2011; 2011:397029.
• Wylie CM, Shelton RM, Fleming GJ, Davenport AJ. Corrosion of nickel-based dental casting alloys. Dent Mater 2007;23:714-23.
• Imirzalioglu P, Alaaddinoglu E, Yilmaz Z, Oduncuoglu B, Yilmaz B, Rosenstiel S. Influence of recasting different types of dental alloys on gingival fibroblast cytotoxicity. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:24-33.
• Zhang CY, Cheng H, Lin DH, Zheng M, Ozcan M, Zhao W, et al. Effects of recasting on the biocompatibility of a Ni-Cr alloy. Chin J Dent Res 2012;15:105-13.
• Reddy NR, Abraham AP, Murugesan K, Matsa V. An invitro analysis of elemental release and cytotoxicity of recast nickel-chromium dental casting alloys. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2011;11:106-12.
• Al-Hiyasat AS, Darmani H. The effects of recasting on the cytotoxicity of base metal alloys. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:158-63.
• Zhou J, Paul A, Bennani V, Thomson WM, Firth NA. New Zealand dental practitioners’ experience of patient allergies to dental alloys used for prosthodontics. NZ Dent J 2010;106:55-60.
• Reclaru L, Unger RE, Kirkpatrick CJ, Susz C, Eschler PY, Zuercher MH, et al. Ni-Cr based dental alloys; Ni release, corrosion and biological evaluation. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2012;32:1452-60.
• Windholz M, Budvari S, Blumetil RF, Otterbein ES, eds. The Merck Index, 10th ed. New Jersey: Rahway, Merck and Co, 1983.
• 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.
• de Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Scheffel DL, Soares DG, Basso FG, Ribeiro AP. Methods to evaluate and strategies to improve the biocompatibility of dental materials and operative techniques. Dent Mater 2014;30:769-84.
• Mjör IA. Minimum requirements for new dental materials. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:907-12.
• Ferracane JL, Mitchell JC. Biocompatibility and Tissue Reaction to Biomaterials. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM, eds. Craig’s restorative dental materials. Philadelphia: Elsevier Mosby; 2012. p. 109-33.
• Tuncer S, Demirci M. Dental materyallerde biyouyumluluk değerlendirmeleri. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2011;21:141-9.
• Schmalz G. Determination of Biocompatibility. Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D, eds. Biocompatibility of Dental Materials. Berlin: Springer; 2009. p. 13-43.
• Schmalz G. Concepts in biocompatibility testing of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 1997;1:154-62.
• Hanks CT, Wataha JC, Sun Z. In vitro models of biocompatibility: a review. Dent Mater 1996;12:186-93.
• Uzun İH, Bayındır F. Dental materyallerin biyouyumluluk test yöntemleri. GÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg 2011;28:115-22.
• Murray PE, García Godoy C, García Godoy F. How is the biocompatibilty of dental biomaterials evaluated? Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2007;12:E258-66.
• Anusavice K, Schmalz G. Biocompatibility. Anusavice K, Shen C, Rawls H, eds. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2013. p. 111-47.
• Lemons JE. Dental implant biomaterials. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;121:716-9.
• Wataha JC. Predicting clinical biological responses to dental materials. Dent Mater 2012;28:23-40.
• Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practitioners. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:203-9.
• Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D. Basic Aspects. Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D, eds. Biocompatibility of Dental Materials. Berlin: Springer; 2009. p. 1-12.