Irritation test of tissue adhesives for facial prostheses

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Volumn 84, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 453-457

  Dahl, Jon E ^a   Polyzois, Gregory L ^b  

^a Nordisk Institutt for Odontologiske Materialer   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETIC ACID DERIVATIVE; ACETIC ACID ETHYL ESTER; IRRITANT AGENT; TISSUE ADHESIVE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BLOOD CLOTTING; BLOOD VESSEL; CHEMISTRY; CHICK EMBRYO; CHORION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DRUG EFFECT; FETUS MEMBRANE; IRRITANT DERMATITIS; MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS; TOXICITY TESTING; VASCULARIZATION;

ACETATES; ALLANTOIS; ANIMALS; BLOOD COAGULATION; BLOOD VESSELS; CHICK EMBRYO; CHORION; DERMATITIS, IRRITANT; IRRITANTS; MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS; SKIN IRRITANCY TESTS; TISSUE ADHESIVES;

EID: 0034304165     PISSN: 00223913     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2000.109506     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Schaaf NG. The effect of using endosseous implant support on extraoral prostheses In: Setcos JC, editor. Proceedings of Conference on Materials Research in Maxillofacial Prosthetics. Trans Acad Dent Mater 1992;5:67-76.
2. Adisman IK, Minsley GE. Maxillofacial prosthetics. In: Öwall B, Käyser AF, Carlsson GE, editors. Prosthodontics-principles and management strategies. London: Mosby-Wolfe; 1996. p. 201-21.
3. Lemon JC, Chambers MS. Conventional methods of retention of facial prostheses In: Zlotolow IM, Esposito S, Beumer J, editors. Proceedings of 1st International Congress on Maxillofacial Prosthetics. New York: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; 1995. p. 116-9.
4. Roberts AC. Facial reconstruction by prosthetic means. Br J Oral Surg 1967;4:157-82.
5. McKinstry RE. Retention and facial prostheses. In: McKinstry RE, editor. Fundamentals of facial prosthetics. Arlington: ABI Professional Publication; 1995. p. 21.
6. Beumer J, Ma T, Marunick M, Roumanas E, Nishimura R. Restoration of facial defects. Etiology, disability, and rehabilitation. In: Beumer J, Curtis TA, Marunick MT, editors. Maxillofacial rehabilitation: prosthodontic and surgical considerations. St Louis: Ishiyaku EuroAmerica Inc; 1996. p. 377-453.
7. Udagama A. Biocompatibility and physical properties of adhesives in maxillofacial prosthetics. [Master's thesis.] Indianapolis: Indiana University; 1975.
8. Sheller H. Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur klinischen Eignung von zwei Epithesenmaterialien. Dtsch Zahnärtl Z 1993;48:509-11.
9. Sheller H. Biological testing of materials and tissue adhesives for epithesis. In: Zlotolow IM, Esposito S, Beumer J, editors. Proceedings of 1st International Congress on Maxillofacial Prosthetics. New York: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; 1995. p. 239-42.
10. Kalweit S, Besoke R, Gerner I, Spielmann H. A national validation project of alternative methods to the Draize rabbit eye test. Toxicol In Vitro 1990;4:702-6.
11. Spielmann H. HET-CAM Test. In: O'Hara S, Atterwill CK, editors. Methods in molecular biology. Vol. 43: toxicity testing protocols. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press Inc; 1995. p. 199-204.
12. Spielmann H, Kalweit S, Liebsch M, Wirnsberger T, Gerner I, Bertram-Neis E, et al. Validation study of alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test in Germany. Cytotoxicity testing and HET-CAM-Test with 136 industrial chemicals. Toxicol In Vitro 1993;7:505-10.
13. Gettings SD, Dipasquale LC, Bagley DM, Casterton PL, Chudkowski M, Curren RD, et al. The CTFA Evaluation of Alternatives Program: an evaluation of in vitro alternatives to the Draize primary eye irritation test. (Phase II) oil/water emulsions. Food Chem Toxicol 1994;32:943-76.
14. Gettings SD, Lordo RA, Demetrulias J, Feder PI, Hintze KL. Comparison of low-volume, Draize and in vitro eye irritation test data. I. Hydroalcoholic formulations. Food Chem Toxicol 1996;34:737-49.
15. Spielmann H, Liebsch M, Kalweit S, Moldenhauer F, Wirnsberger T, Holzhütter HG, et al. Results of a validation study in Germany on two in vitro alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test, the HET-CAM test and the 3T3 NRU cytotoxicity test. ATLA 1996;24:741-858.
16. Schendel KU, Erdinger L, Komposch G, Sonntag HG. Orthodontic materials studied in the HET-CAM test for mucosa-irritating effects. [in German] Fortschr Kieferorth 1994;55:28-35.
17. Dahl JE. Irritation of dental adhesive agents evaluated by the HET-CAM test. Toxicol In Vitro 1999;13:259-64.
18. Lönnroth EC, Dahl JE, Shahnavaz H. Evaluating the potential occupational hazard of handling dental polymer products using the HET-CAM technique. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 1999;5:41-55.
19. Balls M, Botham PA, Bruner LH, Spielmann H. The EC/HO international validation study on alternatives to the Draize eye irritation test. Toxicol In Vitro 1995;9:871-929.
20. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Some organic solvents, resin monomers and related compounds, pigments and occupational exposures in paint manufacturing and painting. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Vol 47. Lyon: WHO; 1990.
21. RTECS Registry of toxic effects of chemicals. NIOSH compact disc C2 (99-1). Cincinnati: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1999.