Article Data

  • Views 1508
  • Dowloads 247

Original Research

Open Access

Effect of Finishing-Polishing Procedures on Cytotoxicity of Resin-Based Restorative Materials via Real-Time Cell Analysis

  • Ceren Çimen1,*,
  • Fatma Funda Demirsoy2
  • Aysun Özdemir3
  • Mustafa Ark3
  • Nurhan Özalp1

1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

2Systems Biotechnology Advanced Reseach Unit, Biotechnology Institute, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

3Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

DOI: 10.17796/1053-4625-46.1.5 Vol.46,Issue 1,January 2022 pp.24-29

Published: 01 January 2022

*Corresponding Author(s): Ceren Çimen E-mail: cerencimen45@gmail.com

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of finishing and polishing procedures of compomer and bulk-fill composite resins on cytotoxicity against human gingival fibroblasts by xCELLigence analysis. Study Design: FiltekTM Bulk Fill composite and Dyract XP compomer were used. After curing, the specimens were randomly divided into two groups and finishing-polishing procedures were applied to one group; no finishing-polishing procedures were applied to the other group. For the first time in this study, pure gold samples were prepared with the same weight and base area as the test specimens and the wells containing the pure gold samples were determined as the control group. xCELLigence system was used to assess the response of the human gingival fibroblasts after exposure to test specimens. Measurements were recorded for 72 hours after adding specimens. Results: Finishing and polishing procedures caused a significant increase in cell viability of Dyract XP compomer samples at all time periods; the percentage of cell viability reached above 70% after finishing and polishing procedures. However, significant effects were not observed in FiltekTM Bulk Fill composite samples at any time period. Conclusion: Finishing and polishing procedures play an essential role in increasing the biocompatibility of Dyract XP compomer. It is recommended to apply finishing and polishing procedures even though a smooth surface may be obtained in restorations with matrix strips.


Keywords

Bulk-fill composite; Compomer; Cytotoxicity; xCELLigence; Finishing and polishing procedures; Real-time cell analysis

Cite and Share

Ceren Çimen,Fatma Funda Demirsoy,Aysun Özdemir,Mustafa Ark,Nurhan Özalp. Effect of Finishing-Polishing Procedures on Cytotoxicity of Resin-Based Restorative Materials via Real-Time Cell Analysis. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2022. 46(1);24-29.

References

1. Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D. Biocompatibility of dental materials. Vol. 1. Berlin: Springer, 2009.

2. Krol DM, Nedley MP. Dental caries: state of the science for the most common chronic disease of childhood. Adv Pediatr , 2007;54: 215-239.

3. Shah S. Paediatric dentistry-novel evolvement. Ann Med Surg , 2018;25: 21-29.

4. Schwendicke F, Gostemeyer G, Blunck U, et al. Directly Placed Restorative Materials: Review and Network Meta-analysis. J Dent Res, 2016 ;95: 613-622.

5. Pratap B, Gupta RK, Bhardwaj B, et al. Resin based restorative dental materials: characteristics and future perspectives. Jpn Dent Sci Rev, 2019 ;55: 126-138.

6. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials, 2007; 28: 3757-3785.

7. Marigo L, Nocca G, Fiorenzano G, et al. Influences of Different Air-Inhibition Coatings on Monomer Release, Microhardness, and Color Stability of Two Composite Materials. BioMed Res. Int. Article ID 4240264, 2019.

8. Rueggeberg F, Margeson D. The effect of oxygen inhibition on an unfilled/ filled composite system. J Dent Res, 1990; 69: 1652-1658.

9. Komurcuoglu E, Olmez S, Vural N. Evaluation of residual monomer elimination methods in three different fissure sealants in vitro. J Oral Rehabil, 2005; 32: 116-121.

10. Lee M-J, Kim M-J, Kwon J-S, et al. Cytotoxicity of Light-Cured Dental Materials according to Different Sample Preparation Methods. Materials, 2017; 10: 288.

11. Fujioka-Kobayashi M, Miron RJ, Lussi A, et al. Effect of the degree of conversion of resin-based composites on cytotoxicity, cell attachment, and gene expression. Dent Mater , 2019, 35: 1173-1193.

12. Małkiewicz K, Wychowański P, Olkowska-Truchanowicz J, et al. Uncompleted polymerization and cytotoxicity of dental restorative materials as potential health risk factors. Ann Agric Environ Med, 2017; 24: 618-623.

13. Van Landuyt KL, Nawrot T, Geebelen B, et al. How much do resin-based dental materials release? A meta-analytical approach. Dent Mater , 2011; 27: 723-747.

14. Gupta SK, Saxena P, Pant VA, et al. Release and toxicity of dental resin composite. Toxicol Int, 2012; 19: 225.

15. Brzović Rajić V, Želježić D, Malčić Ivanišević A, Verzak Ž, Baraba A, Miletić I. Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Resin Based Dental Materials in Human Lymphocytes In Vitro. Acta Clin Croat, 2018;57:278-285.

16. Kraus D, Wolfgarten M, Enkling N, et al. In-vitro cytocompatibility of dental resin monomers on osteoblast-like cells, 2017; J Dent 65: 76-82.

17. Şişman R, Aksoy A, Yalçin M, et al. Cytotoxic effects of bulk fill composite resins on human dental pulp stem cells. J Oral Sci , 2016 ;58: 299-305.

18. Issa Y, Watts D, Brunton P, et al. Resin composite monomers alter MTT and LDH activity of human gingival fibroblasts in vitro. Dent Mater, 2004; 20: 12-20.

19. Reichl FX, Esters M, Simon S, et al. Cell death effects of resin-based dental material compounds and mercurials in human gingival fibroblasts. Arch Toxicol, 2006; 80: 370-377.

20. Urcan E, Haertel U, Styllou M, et al. Real-time xCELLigence impedance analysis of the cytotoxicity of dental composite components on human gingival fibroblasts. Dent Mater , 2010; 26: 51-58.

21. Teng Z, Kuang X, Wang J, et al. Real-time cell analysis–a new method for dynamic, quantitative measurement of infectious viruses and antiserum neutralizing activity. J Virol Methods , 2013;193: 364-370.

22. Özdemir A and Ark M. xCELLigence real-time cell analysis system: a new method for cell proliferation and cytotoxicity. Niche, 2013; 2:15-17.

23. Celik N, Binnetoglu D, Ozakar Ilday N, Hacimuftuoglu A, Seven N. The cytotoxic and oxidative effects of restorative materials in cultured human gingival fibroblasts. Drug Chem Toxicol ,2019; 31:1-6.

24. Chang H-H, Chang M-C, Wang H-H, et al. Urethane dimethacrylate induces cytotoxicity and regulates cyclooxygenase-2, hemeoxygenase and carboxylesterase expression in human dental pulp cells. Acta Biomater , 2014; 10:722-731.

25. Pagano S, Coniglio M, Valenti C, et al. Biological effects of resin mono - mers on oral cell populations: descriptive analysis of literature. Eur J Paediatr Dent, 2019; 20:224-232.

26. ISO 10993-13:2010 Biological Evaluation Of Medical Devices–Part 13: Identification and quantification of degradation products from polymeric medical devices, International Organization for Standardization,2010.

27. Susila AV, Balasubramanian V. Correlation of elution and sensitivity of cell lines to dental composites. Dent Mater, 2016; 32: e63-e72.

28. Keogh R. New technology for investigating trophoblast function. Placenta, 2010 ;31: 347-350.

29. Stefanowicz-Hajduk J, Ochocka JR. Real-time cell analysis system in cytotoxicity applications: Usefulness and comparison with tetrazolium salt assays. Toxicol Rep , 2020; 7: 335-344.

30. Azharuddin M, Zhu GH, Das D, et al. A repertoire of biomedical applica - tions of noble metal nanoparticles. Chem Commun, 2019; 55: 6964-6996.

31. Connor EE, Mwamuka J, Gole A, et al. Gold nanoparticles are taken up by human cells but do not cause acute cytotoxicity. Small , 2005;1: 325-327.

32. Umair M, Javed I, Rehman M, et al. Nanotoxicity of inert materials: the case of gold, silver and iron. J Pharm Pharm Sci , 2016; 19: 161-180.

33. Panyala NR, Peña-Méndez EM and Havel J. Gold and nano-gold in medicine: overview, toxicology and perspectives. J Appl Biomed , 2009; 7:75-91.

34. Fratoddi I, Venditti I, Cametti C, et al. How toxic are gold nanoparticles? The state-of-the-art. Nano Res, 2015; 8: 1771-1799.

35. Gonçalves F, Campos LMdP, Rodrigues-Júnior EC, et al. A comparative study of bulk-fill composites: degree of conversion, post-gel shrinkage and cytotoxicity. Braz Oral Res, 2018; 32:e17.

36. Garcia D, Yaman P, Dennison J, Neiva G. Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk fill flowable composite resins. Oper Dent, 2014 ; 39:441-448.

37. Tarle Z, Attin T, Marovic D, et al. Influence of irradiation time on subsur - face degree of conversion and microhardness of high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites. Clin Oral Investig , 2015; 19: 831-840.

38. Monterubbianesi R, Orsini G, Tosi G, et al. Spectroscopic and mechanical properties of a new generation of bulk fill composites. Front Physiol , 2016; 7: 652.

39. Rezaei S, Abbasi M, Sadeghi Mahounak F, et al. Curing Depth and Degree of Conversion of Five Bulk-Fill Composite Resins Compared to a Conven - tional Composite. Open Dent J , 2019; 13: 422-429.

40. Demirel G, Gür G, Demirsoy FF, et al. Cytotoxic effects of contemporary bulk-fill dental composites: A real-time cell analysis. Dent Mater J, 2020; 39:101-110.

41. Nascimento AS, Lima DB, Fook MVL, et al. Physicomechanical charac - terization and biological evaluation of bulk-fill composite resin. Braz Oral Res, 2018; 32: e107.

42. Ferracane J and Condon J. Rate of elution of leachable components from composite. Dent Mater , 1990; 6: 282-287.

43. Putzeys E, De Nys S, Cokic SM, et al. Long-term elution of monomers from resin-based dental composites. Dent Mater, 2019; 35: 477-485.

44. Alshali RZ, Salim NA, Sung R, Satterthwaite JD, Silikas N. Analysis of long-term monomer elution from bulk-fill and conventional resin-compos - ites using high performance liquid chromatography. Dent Mater , 2015; 31:1587-98.

45. Łagocka R, Mazurek-Mochol M, Jakubowska K, Bendyk-Szeffer M, Chlubek D, Buczkowska-Radlińska J. Analysis of Base Monomer Elution from 3 Flowable Bulk-Fill Composite Resins Using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). Med Sci Monit, 2018; 24:4679.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

PubMed (MEDLINE) PubMed comprises more than 35 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top