Effect of chemical structure on degree of conversion in light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins

Study of water sorption, solubility and modulus of elasticity of light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins

It was the purpose of this investigation to determine the cytotoxic effects (ED50 concentrations) of 35 monomers or additives identified in commercial dental resin composites. Monolayers of permanent 3T3 cells and three primary human fibroblast types derived from oral tissues (gingiva, pulp, and periodontal ligament) were used as test systems. All substances were tested in concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 5.0 mM. In general, ED50 values varied from 0.06 to > 5 mM. Within the groups of co(monomers), initiators, and cointiators, severe (e.g., Bis-GMA, UDMA, DMBZ, and DMDTA) or moderate (HEMA, BEMA, CQ, DMPT, and DMAPE) cytotoxic effects could be evaluated. Within the group of reaction/decomposition products, only moderate or slight effects were found (ED50: 0.7 to > 5 mM). The inhibitor BHT, the contaminant TPSb, and the photostabilizer HMBP, however, were highly cytotoxic in all cell cultures. In addition, the ED50 values of DBPO and HMBP significantly varied (0.43-3.8 mM, respectively, and 0.44-3.07 mM) with the applied cell culture. Our comprehensive screening shows that for several of the highly cytotoxic composite components, less cytotoxic alternatives are available. Furthermore, there was no cell type identified which was consistently less or more sensitive to the toxic effects of the tested compounds than the others. Primary human periodontal ligament and pulp fibroblasts, however, were found to be more sensitive than 3T3 and gingival fibroblasts to alterations from most tested substances.

Cytotoxicity of 35 dental resin composite monomers/additives in permanent 3T3 and three human primary fibroblast cultures.

Antibacterial properties of resin composites and dentin bonding systems

Biomaterials for the restoration of oral function are prone to biofilm formation, affecting oral health. Oral bacteria adhere to hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces, but due to fluctuating shear, little biofilm accumulates on hydrophobic surfaces in vivo. More biofilm accumulates on rough than on smooth surfaces. Oral biofilms mostly consist of multiple bacterial strains, but Candida species are found on acrylic dentures. Biofilms on gold and amalgam in vivo are thick and fully covering, but barely viable. Biofilms on ceramics are thin and highly viable. Biofilms on composites and glass-ionomer cements cause surface deterioration, which enhances biofilm formation again. Residual monomer release from composites influences biofilm growth in vitro, but effects in vivo are less pronounced, probably due to the large volume of saliva into which compounds are released and its continuous refreshment. Similarly, conflicting results have been reported on effects of fluoride release from glass-ionomer cements. Finally, biomaterial-associated infection of implants and devices elsewhere in the body is compared with oral biofilm formation. Biomaterial modifications to discourage biofilm formation on implants and devices are critically discussed for possible applications in dentistry. It is concluded that, for dental applications, antimicrobial coatings killing bacteria upon contact are more promising than antimicrobial-releasing coatings.

Biofilm Formation on Dental Restorative and Implant Materials

Previous studies have shown that extracts of various filling materials, e.g., resin composites, may influence the growth of cariogenic micro-organisms. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of important resin composite (co)monomers (Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGDMA, EGDMA) and extracts of two commercial dental composites with similar composition (composite A, Arabesk; composite S, Superlux) on the growth of the two cariogenic bacterial pathogens Streptococcus sobrinus and Lactobacillus acidophilus. It was found that neither the monomers Bis-GMA and UDMA, nor the comonomer EGDMA, nor the extract of composite A influenced the growth of S. sobrinus in the log phase. The comonomer TEGDMA and the extract of composite S were found to stimulate growth in the log phase, but this stimulation was not statistically significant. However, EGDMA, TEGDMA, and the extract of composite S did stimulate the total growth of S. sobrinus. In the assays with L. acidophilus, Bis-GMA, UDMA, and the extract of composite A inhibited the growth in the log phase, whereas TEGDMA stimulated it. Furthermore, EGDMA, TEGDMA, and the extract of composite S stimulated the biomass production of L. acidophilus. We conclude from our results that a release of EGDMA and TEGDMA from resin composites should be avoided due to their growth-stimulating effects on the caries-associated micro-organisms S. sobrinus and L. acidophilus.

C. Hansel

Papers

Effects of Various Resin Composite (Co)monomers and Extracts on Two Caries-associated Micro-organisms in vitro