The biocompatibility of glass-ionomer cement materials. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry

American Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 387-396

  Sidhu, Sharanbir K ^a   Schmalz, Gottfried ^b  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMATERIAL; FLUORIDE; GLASS IONOMER; ION; METHACRYLIC ACID DERIVATIVE;

ANIMAL; BIOREMEDIATION; BONE DEVELOPMENT; CHEMISTRY; DRUG EFFECT; HUMAN; MUTAGEN TESTING; REVIEW; STREPTOCOCCUS MUTANS; TOOTH PULP; TOXICITY TESTING;

ANIMALS; BIOCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS; BIODEGRADATION, ENVIRONMENTAL; DENTAL PULP; FLUORIDES; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; HUMANS; IONS; METHACRYLATES; MUTAGENICITY TESTS; OSTEOGENESIS; STREPTOCOCCUS MUTANS; TOXICITY TESTS;

EID: 0035750551     PISSN: 08948275     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (136)

1. Williams DF. Definitions in Biomaterials. Oxford: Elsevier, 1987.
2. Williams DF. The biocompatibility of glass ionomer cements. Proceedings of the 1st European Union Conference on glass-ionomers, 1996: 37-38. ISBN 0 9528232 0 9.
3. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14155: Clinical investigation of medical devices. Geneva: ISO, 1996.
4. The Council of the European Communities. EEC Directive on Medical Devices. Brussels, 1993.
5. Schmalz G. Use of cell cultures for toxicity testing of dental materials. Advantages and limitations. J Dent 1994; 22 (Suppl 2): S6-S11.
6. Wataha JC, Hanks CT. Biocompatibility testing. What can we anticipate? Trans Third Int Cong Dent Mater 1997: 109-120.
7. European Committee for Standardization EN 1441: Medical devices. Risk analysis. Brussels, 1997.
8. Hume WR. Methods of assessment in vitro of restorative material toxicity using an intact human dentine diffusion step. Int Endod J 1988; 21: 85-88.
9. Hanks CT, Craig RG, Makinen PK, et al. Characterization of the in vitro pulp chamber using cytotoxicity of phenol. J Oral Pathol 1989; 18: 97-107.
10. Hume WR. Pulpal responses to glass ionomers. In: Hunt P. Glass ionomers: The next generation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Glass Ionomers. Philadelphia: 1994; 143-150.
11. Pashley DH. 2. The influence of dentin permeability and pulpal blood flow on pulpal solute concentrations. J Endod 1979; 5: 355-361.
12. Schmalz G, Hiller KA, Nunez LJ, et al. Permeability characteristics of bovine and human dentin under different pretreatment conditions. J Endod, 2001;27:23-30.
13. American Dental Association. ANSI-ADA Specification No. 41. Recommended standard practices for biological evaluation of dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1979; 99: 637.
14. International Organization for Standardization. Biological testing of medical and dental materials and devices - Part 1: Guidance on selection of tests. Ref. No. ISO 10 993-1, Geneva: ISO, 1992.
15. International Organization for Standardization ISO 7405: Dentistry: Preclinical evaluation of biocompatibility of medical devices used in dentistry. Test methods for dental materials. Geneva: ISO, 1997.
16. American Dental Association. ANSI-ADA-document no.41 for Biological Evaluation of Dental Materials. Chicago: ADA, 1982.
17. International Organization for Standardization. Technical Report No. 7405: Biological testing for dental materials. London: ISO, 1984.
18. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10993: Biological evaluation of medical devices. London: ISO, 1992.
19. Schmalz G. Modern concepts in biocompatibility testing of restorative materials. Proc Acad Dent Mater meeting, 1996: 170-179.
20. Council directive of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (93/42/EEC), 1993. Official Journal of the European Communities L169:1-43.
21. International Organization for Standardization ISO 10993-3: Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 3: Tests for genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity. Geneva, 1992.
22. Schmalz G. Concepts in biocompatibility testing of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest 1997; 1: 154-162.
23. Schmalz G, Hiller KA, Aslan-Dörter F. New developments in the Filter Test System for cytotoxicity testing. J Mater Sci: Mat in Med 1994; 5: 43-51.
24. Forss H. Release of fluoride and other elements from light-cured glass ionomers in neutral and acidic conditions. J Dent Res 1993;72:1257-1262.
25. Bapna MS, Mueller HJ. Leaching from glass ionomer cements. J Oral Rehab 1994;21:577-583.
26. Geurtsen W. Substances released from dental resin composites and glass ionomer cements. Eur J Oral Sci 1998; 106: 687-695.
27. Forsten L. Fluoride release from a glass ionomer cement. Scand J Dent Res 1977; 85: 503-504.
28. Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Clark HE. Long-term F release from glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1984; 63: 158-160.
29. Thornton JB, Retief DH, Bradley EL. Fluoride release from and tensile bond strength of Ketac-Fil and Ketac-Silver to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 1986; 2: 241-245.
30. Forsten L. Short and long-term fluoride release from a glass ionomer cement. Scand J Dent Res 1990; 98: 179-185.
31. Friedl KH, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, et al. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements: fluoride release and influence on Streptococcus mutans growth. Eur J Oral Sci 1997; 105: 81-85.
32. Wilson AD, Groffman DM, Kuhn AT. The release of fluoride and other chemical species from a glass-ionomer cement. Biomater 1985;6:431-433.
33. Thevadass KP, Pearson GJ, Anstice HM, et al. Method for enhancing the fluoride release of a glass-ionomer cement. Biomater 1996; 17: 425-429.
34. Oliva A, Della Ragione F, Salerno A, et al. Biocompatibility studies on glass ionomer cements by primary cultures of human osteoblasts. Biomater 1996; 17: 1351-1356.
35. Renard JL, Felten D, Bequet D. Post-operative otoneurosurgery aluminium encephalopathy. Lancet 1994; 344: 63-64.
36. Nicholson JW, Braybrook JH, Wasson EA. The biocompatibility of glass-poly(alkenoate) (glass-ionomer) cements: A review. J Biomater Sci Polymer Edn 1991;2:277-285.
37. Yoshikawa T, Hirasawa M, Tosaki S, et al. Concentration of HEMA eluted from light-cured glass-ionomers. J Dent Res 1994;73:133 (Abstr 254).
38. Kan KC, Messer LB, Messer HH. Variability in cytotoxicity and fluoride release of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1997;76:1502-1507.
39. Geurtsen W, Spahl W, Leyhausen G. Residual monomer/additive release and variability in cytotoxicity of light-curing glass-ionomer cements and compomers. J Dent Res 1998; 77: 2012-2019.
40. Ruyter IE, Sjøvik Kleven I. Formaldehyde release from light-cured glass ionomer restorative materials. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 293, (Abstr 1534).
41. Veerbeck RMH, De Maeyer EAP, Marks LAM, et al. Fluoride release process of resin-modified glass-ionomer versus polyacid-modified composite resin. Biomater 1998; 19: 509-520.
42. Kuhn AT, Wilson AD. The dissolution mechanisms of silicate and glass-ionomer dental cements. Biomater 1985; 6: 378-382.
43. Müller J, Bruckner G, Kraft E, et al. Reaction of cultured pulp cells to eight different cements based on glass ionomers. Dent Mater 1990; 6: 172-177.
44. Kawahara H, Imanishi Y, Oshima H. Biological evaluation on glass ionomer cement. J Dent Res 1979; 58: 1080-1086.
45. Sasanaluckit P, Albustany KR, Doherty PJ, et al. Biocompatibility of glass ionomer cements. Biomater 1993; 14: 906-916.
46. Dahl BL, Tronstad L. Biological tests of an experimental glass ionomer (silicopolyacrylate) cement. J Oral Rehabil 1976; 3: 19-24.
47. Meryon SD, Stephens PG, Browne RM. A comparison of the in vitro cytotoxicity of two glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1983;62:769-773.
48. Schmalz G. The Agar Overlay Method. Int Endod J 1988;21:59-66.
49. Caughman WF, Gretchen GB, Dominy WT, et al. Glass ionomer and composite resin cements: Effects on oral cells. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:513-521.
50. Dennison DK, Keefe TF. Cellular response to various restorative materials. J Dent Res 1996; 75: 106 (Abstr 709).
51. Steinbrunner RL, Setcos JC, Kafrawy AH. Connective tissue reactions to glass ionomer cements and resin composites. Am J Dent 1991;4:281-284.
52. Nix L, Schuster GS, Lewis JB, et al. Response of oral mucosal cells to glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1995;74:243 (Abstr 1856).
53. Schwartzman B, Caputo AA, Schein B. Antimicrobial action of dental cements. J Prosthet Dent 1980; 43: 309-312.
54. McComb D, Ericson D. Antimicrobial action of new, proprietary lining cements. J Dent Res 1987;66:1025-1028.
55. Barkhordar RA, Kempler D, Pelzner RRB, et al. Technical note: Antimicrobial action of glass-ionomer lining cement on S. sanguis and S. mutans. Dent Mater 1989; 5: 281-282.
56. Scherer W, Lippman N, Kaim J. Antimicrobial properties of glass-ionomer cements and other restorative materials. Oper Dent 1989;14:77-81.
57. Palenik CJ, Behnen MJ, Setcos JC, et al. Inhibition of microbial adherence and growth by various glass ionomers in vitro. Dent Mater 1992; 8: 16-20.
58. Prati C, Fava F, Di Gioia D, et al. Antibacterial effectiveness of dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater 1993; 9: 338-343.
59. Tobias RS, Browne RM, Wilson CA. Antibacterial activity of dental restorative materials. Int Endod J 1985; 18: 161-171.
60. Meryon SD, Johnson SG. The modified model cavity method for assessing anti-bacterial properties of dental restorative materials. J Dent Res 1989; 68: 835-839.
61. Forss H, Jokinen J, Spets-Happonen S, et al. Fluoride and mutans streptococci in plaque grown on glass ionomer and composite. Caries Res 1991; 25: 454-458.
62. Svanberg M, Krasse B, Örnerfeldt HO. Mutans streptococci in interproximal plaque from amalgam and glass ionomer restorations. Caries Res 1990; 24: 133-136.
63. Svanberg M, Mjör IA, Ørstavik D. Mutans streptococci in plaque from margins of amalgam, composite, and glass ionomer restorations. J Dent Res 1990; 69: 861-864.
64. DeSchepper EJ, White RR, von der Lehr W. Antibacterial effects of glass ionomers. Am J Dent 1989; 2: 51-56.
65. DeSchepper EJ, Thrasher MR, Thurmond BA. Antibacterial effects of light-cured liners. Am J Dent 1989; 2: 74-76.
66. Mount GJ. Glass ionomer cements: Clinical considerations. Clin Dent 1984; 4: 4-5.
67. Seppä L, Forss H, Øgaard B. The effect of fluoride application on fluoride release and the antibacterial action of glass ionomers. J Dent Res 1993; 72: 1310-1314.
68. Jokinen HF, Spets-Happonen S, Seppa L, et al. Fluoride and Mutans Streptococci in plaque grown on glass ionomer and composite. Caries Res 1991; 25: 454-458.
69. Harrap GJ, Saxton CA, Best JS. Inhibition of plaque growth by zinc salt. J Periodont Res 1983; 18: 634-642.
70. Saxton CA, Harrap GJ, Lloyd AM. The effect of dentifrices containing zinc citrate on plaque growth and oral zinc levels. J Clin Periodontol 1986; 13: 301-306.
71. Nourollahi M, Meryon SD. The antibacterial properties of four elements released from dental restorative materials. Int Endod J 1989; 22: 9-16.
72. de Rosas MI, Chan DCN. Effect of zinc and fluoride released from glass ionomer on bacterial growth. J Dent Res 1996;75:68, (Abstr 404).
73. Jonck LM, Grobbelaar CJ, Strating HG. Biological evaluation of glass-ionomer cement (Ketac-O) as an interface material in total joint replacement: A screening test. Clin Mater 1989; 4: 201-224.
74. Jonck LM, Grobbelaar CJ, Strating HG. The biocompatibility of a glass-ionomer cement in joint replacement: Bulk testing. Clin Mater 1989;4: 85-107.
75. Jonck LM, Grobbelaar CJ. Ionos bone cement (glass-ionomer): An experimental and clinical evaluation in joint replacement. Clin Mater 1990; 6: 323-359.
76. Brook IM, Craig GT, Lamb DJ. Initial in vivo evaluation of glass-ionomer cements for use as alveolar bone substitutes. Clin Mater 1991; 7: 295-300.
77. Brook IM, Craig GT, Hatton PV, et al. Bone cell interactions with a granular glass-ionomer bone substitute material: An in vivo and in vitro culture models. Biomater 1992; 13: 721-725.
78. Zmener O, Domínguez FV. Tissue response to a glass ionomer used as an endodontic cement. A preliminary study in dogs. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1983; 56: 198-205.
79. Bauer JG, Al-Rubayi A. Tissue response to direct filling materials. J Prosthet Dent 1987; 58: 584-589.
80. Zöllner W, Rüdel C. Medical applications of glass ionomer. In: Hunt P. Glass ionomers: The next generation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symbposium on Glass Ionomers, Philadelphia: 1994; 57-60.
81. Brentegani LG, Bombonato KF, Carvalho TL. Histological evaluation of the bio-compatibility of a glass-ionomer cement in rat alveolus. Biomater 1997; 18: 137-140.
82. Helms J, Geyer G, Zöllner W, et al. Bone replacement part made of glass ionomer cement. US Patent, 1994; 5: 314,474.
83. Andersson OH, Dahl JE. Aluminium release from glass ionomer cements during early water exposure in vitro. Biomater 1994; 15: 882-888.
84. Carter DH, Sloan P, Brook IM, et al. Role of exchanged ions in the integration of ionomeric (glass polyalkenoate) bone substitutes. Biomater 1997; 18: 459-466.
85. Kolokuris I, Beltes P, Economides N, et al. Experimental study of the biocompatibility of a new glass-ionomer root canal sealer (Ketac-Endo). J Endod 1996; 22: 395-398.
86. Callis PD, Santini A. Tissue response to retrograde root fillings in the ferret canine: A comparison of a glass-ionomer cement and gutta-percha with sealer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1987; 64: 475-479.
87. DeGrood ME, Oguntebi BR, Cunningham CJ, et al. A comparison of tissue reactions to Ketac-Fil and amalgam. J Endod 1995; 21: 65-69.
88. PittFord TR, Roberts GJ. Tissue response to glass ionomer retrograde root fillings. Int Endod J 1990; 23: 233-238.
89. Pissiotis E, Sapounas G, Spångberg LSW. Silver glass ionomer cement as a retrograde filling material: A study in vitro. J Endod 1991;17:225-229.
90. Blackman R, Gross M, Seltzer S. An evaluation of the biocompatibility of a glass ionomer-silver cement in rat connective tissue. J Endod 1989; 15: 76-79.
91. Cooper IR. The response of the human dental pulp to glass ionomer cements. Int Endod J 1980; 13: 76-88.
92. Pameijer CH, Segal E, Richardson J. Pulpal response to glass ionomer cements in primates. J Prosthet Dent 1981; 46: 36-40.
93. Tobias RS, Browne RM, Plant CG, et al. Pulpal response to a glass-ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1978; 144: 345-350.
94. Plant CG, Browne RM, Knibbs PJ, et al. Pulpal effects of glass-ionomer cements. Int Endod J 1984; 17: 51-59.
95. Plant CG, Tobias RS, Browne RM, et al. Toxicity testing of inlay cements. Clin Mater 1986; 1: 291-301.
96. Plant CG, Knibbs PJ, Tobias RS, et al. Pulpal response to a glass-ionomer luting cement. Br Dent J 1988; 165: 54-58.
97. Klötzer WT. Pulp reactions to a glass ionomer cement. J Dent Res 1975; 54: 678 (Abstr 75).
98. Paterson RC, Watts A. The response of the rat molar pulp to glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1981; 151: 228-230.
99. Schmalz G, Schmalz C, Rotgans J. Die Pulpaverträglichkeit eines Glasionomer-und Zinkoxidphosphat-Zementes. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 1986; 41: 806-812.
100. Pameijer CH, Stanley HR, Ecker G. Biocompatibility of a glass ionomer luting agent. Part II: Crown cementation. Am J Dent 1991; 4: 134-142.
101. Hume WR, Mount GJ. In vitro studies on the potential for pulpal cytotoxicity of glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1988; 67: 915-918.
102. Bergenholtz G, Cox CF, Loesche WJ, et al. Bacterial leakage around dental restorations: Its effect on the dental pulp. J Oral Pathol 1982; 11: 439-450.
103. Plant CG, Tobias RS, Rippin JW, et al. A study of the relationship among pulpal response, microbial microleakage, and particle heterogeneity in a glass-ionomer-base material. Dent Mater 1991; 7: 217-224.
104. Schmalz G, Thonemann B, Riedel M, et al. Biological and clinical investigations of a glass ionomer base material. Dent Mater 1994; 10: 304-313.
105. Tobias RS, Browne RM, Plant CG, et al. Pulpal response to two semihydrous glass ionomer luting cements. Int Endod J 1991; 24: 95-107.
106. Stanley HR. Pulpal responses to ionomer cements - biological characteristics. J Am Dent Assoc 1990; 120: 25-29.
107. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments and Equipment. Reported sensitivity to glass ionomer luting cements. J Am Dent Assoc 1984;109:476.
108. Smith DC, Ruse ND. Acidity of glass ionomer cements during setting and its relation to pulp sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc 1986; 112: 654-657.
109. Wilson AD. Developments in glass ionomer cements. Int J Prosthod 1989; 2: 438-446.
110. Fisher FJ, McCabe JF. Calcium hydroxide base materials. An investigation into the relationship between chemical structure and antibacterial properties. Br Dent J 1978; 144: 341-344.
111. Gordon TM, Ranly DM, Boyan BD. The effects of calcium hydroxide on bovine pulp tissue: Variations in pH and calcium concentration. J Endod 1985;11:156-160.
112. Li Y, Noblitt TW, Dunipace AJ, et al. Evaluation of mutagenicity of restorative dental materials using the Ames Salmonella/Microsome test. J Dent Res 1990; 69: 1188-1192.
113. Schweikl H, Schmalz G, Göttke C. Mutagenic activity of various dentine bonding agents. Biomater 1996; 17: 1451-1456.
114. Schweikl H, Schmalz G. Glutaraldehyde-containing dentin bonding agents are mutagens in mammalian cells in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res 1997; 36: 284-288.
115. Schweikl H, Schmalz G, Rackebrandt K. The mutagenic acitivity of unpolymerized resin monomers in Salmonella typhimurium and V79 cells. Mutat Res 1998; 415: 119-130.
116. Ersev H, Schmalz G, Bayirli G, et al. Cytotoxic and mutagenic potencies of various root canal filling materials in eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells in vitro. J Endod 1999; 25: 359-363.
117. Heil J, Reifferscheid G, Waldmann P, et al. Genotoxicity of dental materials. Mutat Res 1996; 368: 181-194.
118. Schweikl H, Schmalz G. Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate induces large deletions in the hprt gene of V79 cells. Mutat Res 1999; 438: 71-78.
119. Wilson AD. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Int J Prosthod 1990; 3: 425-429.
120. Schmalz G, Schuster U, Nützel, et al. An in vitro pulp chamber with three-dimensional cell cultures. J Endod 1999; 25: 24-29.
121. Bazzucchi M, Mori G, Goracci G. Pulpal response to direct capping of adhesive resins and glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1995; 74: 555 (Abstr 1240).
122. Tassery H, Remusat M, Koubi G, et al. Comparison of the intraosseous biocompatibility of Vitremer and Super EBA by implantation into the mandible of rabbits. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997; 83: 602-608.
123. Cox CF, Erickson RL, Glasspoole E. Histologic pulp response of a new tri-cure glass ionomer. J Dent Res 1993; 72: 348 (Abstr 1960).
124. Gaintantzopoulou MD, Willis GP, Kafrawy AH. Pulp reactions to light-cured glass ionomer cements. Am J Dent 1994; 7: 39-42.
125. Tu MG. Pulpal response to light-cured glass ionomer cements in teens. J Dent Res 1993; 72: 131 (Abstr 218).
126. Karbakhsch M, Leyhausen G, Geurtsen W. Biocompatibility of lightcuring glass ionomer cements in various cell cultures. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 183 (Abstr 650).
127. Chong BS, Owadally ID, Pitt Ford TR, et al. Cytotoxicity of potential retrograde root-filling materials. Endod Dent Traumatol 1994;10:129-133.
128. Chong BS, Owadally ID, Pitt Ford TR, et al. Antibacterial activity of potential retrograde root filling materials. Endod Dent Traumatol 1994; 10: 66-70.
129. Chong BS, Pitt Ford TR, Kariyawasam SP. Tissue response to potential rootend filling materials in infected root canals. Int Endod J 1997; 30: 102-114.
130. Adamson M, Lloyd CH, Watts DC. The temperature rise beneath a light-cured cement lining during light curing. J Dent 1988; 16: 182-187.
131. Bourke AM, Walls AW, McCabe JF. Light-activated glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cements: The setting reaction. J Dent 1992; 20: 115-120.
132. Kanchanavasita W, Pearson GJ, Anstice HM. Temperature rise in ion-leachable cements during setting reaction. Biomater 1995;16:1261-1265.
133. Woolford MJ, Chadwick RG. Surface pH of resin-modified glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cements. J Dent 1992; 20: 359-364.
134. Pashley DH. Smear layer: Physiological considerations. Oper Dent 1984; 9 (Suppl): 359-371.
135. Pashley DH, Michelich V, Kehl TJ. Dentin permeability: Effects of smear layer removal. J Prosthet Dent 1981; 46: 531-537.
136. Mjör IA. The importance of methodology in the evaluation of pulp reactions. Int Dent J 1980; 30: 335-351.