Cytotoxicity of a calcium aluminate cement in comparison with other dental cements and resin-based materials

Acta Odontologica Scandinavica

Volumn 64, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-8

  Franz, Alexander ^a   Konradsson, Katarina ^b,c   König, Franz ^a   Van Dijken, Jan W V ^b   Schedle, Andreas ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Biocompatibility; Cell culture techniques; Ceramics; Dental materials

Indexed keywords

CALCIUM ALUMINATE CEMENT; CALCIUM DERIVATIVE; CARBON DIOXIDE; GLASS IONOMER; GLUTAMINE; PENICILLIN G; RESIN CEMENT; STREPTOMYCIN; TOOTH CEMENT; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; ZINC PHOSPHATE;

ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; BIOCOMPATIBILITY; CELL CULTURE; CELL LINE; CENTRIFUGATION; CERAMICS; COMPOSITE MATERIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOTOXICITY; FIBROBLAST; FLOW CYTOMETRY; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PH;

ALUMINUM COMPOUNDS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; CALCIUM COMPOUNDS; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL CEMENTS; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; FLOW CYTOMETRY; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; L CELLS (CELL LINE); MICE; RESIN CEMENTS; ZINC PHOSPHATE CEMENT;

EID: 31544471722     PISSN: 00016357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00016350500279568     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Black J. Biocompatibility: definitions and issues. In: Black J, editor. Biological performance of materials. Fundamentals of biocompatibility. Marcel Dekker New York; 1999. p. 3-12.
2. Ferracane JL. Elution of leachable components from composites. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21:441-52.
3. Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:1-14.
4. Schmalz G, Garhammer P. Biological interactions of dental cast alloys with oral tissues. Dent Mater 2002;18:396-406.
5. Geurtsen W. Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2000;11:333-55.
6. International Standard Organization. Biological evaluation of medical devices: Part 5. Test for cytotoxicity: in vitro methods. Geneva; 1999.
7. International Standard Organization. Dentistry. Preclinical evaluation of biocompatibility of medical devices used in dentistry. Test methods for dental materials. Geneva; 1997.
8. Acceptance Program Guidelines. Restorative materials. American Dental Association. Council on Scientific Affairs; March 1996.
9. Schedle A, Franz A, Rausch-Fan X, Spittler A, Lucas T, Samorapoompichit P, et al. Cytotoxic effects of dental composites, adhesive substances, compomers and cements. Dent Mater 1998;14:429-40.
10. Franz A, König F, Anglmayer M, Rausch-Fan X, Gille G, Rausch W-D, et al. Cytotoxic effects of packable and nonpackable dental composites. Dent Mater 2003;19:382-92.
11. Lönnroth E-C, Dahl JE. Cytotoxicity of dental glass ionomers evaluated using dimethylthiazol diphenyltetrazolium and neutral red tests. Acta Odontol Scand 2001;59:34-9.
12. Hensten-Pettersen A, Jacobsen N. The role of biomaterials as occupational hazards in dentistry. Int Dent J 1990;40:159-66.
13. Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R. Occupational skin allergy in the dental profession. Dermatol Clin 1994;12:517-32.
14. Munksgaard EC, Hansen EK, Engen T, Holm U. Self-reported occupational dermatological reactions among Danish dentists. Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104:396-402.
15. Örtengren U, Andreasson H, Karlsson S, Meding B, Barregård L. Prevalence of self-reported hand eczema and skin symptoms associated with dental materials among Swedish dentists. Eur J Oral Sci 1999;107:496-505.
16. van Dijken JWV, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K. A two-year clinical evaluation of a new calcium aluminate cement in Class II cavities. Acta Odontol Scand 2003;61:235-40.
17. Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, Peutzfeldt A, van Dijken JWV. Hardness and in vitro wear of a novel ceramic restorative cement. Eur J Oral Sci 2002;110:175-8.
18. Ryan TA. Multiple comparisons in psychological research. Psychol Bull 1959;56:26-47.
19. Ryan TA. Significance tests for multiple comparison of proportions, variances and other statistics. Psychol Bull 1960;57:318-28.
20. Einot I, Gabriel KR. A study of powers of several methods of multiple comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 1975;70:351.
21. Welsch RE. Stepwise multiple comparison procedures. J Am Stat Assoc 1977;72:359.
22. Hanks CT, Strawn SE, Wataha JC, Craig RG. Cytotoxic effects of resin components on cultured mammalian cells. J Dent Res 1991;70:1450-5.
23. de Souza Costa CA, Vaerten MA, Edwards CA, Hanks CT. Cytotoxic effects of current dental adhesive systems on immortalized odontoblast cell line MDPC-23. Dent Mater 1999;15:434-41.
24. Redlich M, Harary D, Shoshan S. Gingival response to a new multipurpose dental adhesive: a histologic study in dogs. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:379-85.
25. Demarco FF, Tarquinio SB, Jaeger MM, Araujo VC, Matson E. Pulp response and cytotoxicity evaluation of 2 dentin bonding agents. Quintessence Int 2001;32:211-20.
26. Costa CA, Olivera MF, Giro EM, Hebling J. Biocompatibility of resin-based materials used as pulp-capping agents. Int Endod J 2003;36:831-9.
27. Schuster GS, Levebvre CA, Wataha JC, White SN. Biocompatibility of posterior restorative materials. J Calif Dent Assoc 1996;24:17-31.
28. Hanks CT, Anderson M, Craig RG. Cytotoxic effects of dental cements on two cell culture systems. J Oral Pathol 1981;10:101-12.
29. Thonemann B, Schmalz G, Hiller KA, Schweikl H. Responses of L929 mouse fibroblasts, primary and immortalized bovine dental-papilla-derived cell lines to dental resin components. Dent Mater 2002;18:318-23.
30. Wataha JC, Lockwood PE, Bouillaguet S, Noda M. In vitro biological response to core and flowable dental restorative materials. Dent Mater 2003;19:25-31.
31. Schedle A, Willheim M, Tuppy F. Cytotoxicity of amalgam. Z Stomatol 1993;90:65-78.
32. Berglund A, Hulterström A-K, Gruffman E, van Dijken JWV. Dimensional change of a new calcium aluminate cement for posterior restorations in aqueous and dry media. Dent Mater 2005. In press.
33. Meryon SD, Stephens PG, Browne RM. A comparison of the in vitro cytotoxicity of two glass-ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1983;62:769-73.
34. Meryon SD, Browne RM. In vitro cytotoxicity of a glass ionomer cement of a new generation. Cell Biochem Funct 1984;2:43-8.
35. Doherty PJ. Biocompatibility evaluation of glass ionomer cement using cell culture techniques. Clin Mater 1991;7:335-40.
36. Kawahara H, Imanshi Y, Oshima H. Biological evaluation on glass ionomer cement. J Dent Res 1979;58:1080-6.
37. Lönnroth EC, Dahl JE. Cytotoxicity of liquids and powders of chemically different dental materials evaluated using dimethylthiazol diphenyltetrazolium and neutral red tests. Acta Odontol Scand 2003;6:52-6.
38. Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, Peutzfeldt A, van Dijken JWV. Flexural strength and modulus of a novel ceramic restorative cement intended for posterior restorations as determined by a three-point bending test. Acta Odontol Scand 2003;61:87-92.
39. Welker D, Neupert G. Comparative in vitro study on cellular reactions to soluble components of EBA and phosphate cement. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1975;30:522-6.
40. Leirskar J, Helgeland K. Toxicity of some dental cements in a cell culture system. Scand J Dent Res 1977;85:471-9.
41. Tyas MJ. In vitro toxicity tests of zinc phosphate cement. J Oral Rehabil 1978;5:339-47.
42. Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Mechanical and physical properties of contemporary dental luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:127-34.
43. Duymus Yesil Z. An investigation of pH changes of various cements. Quintessence Int 2004;35:753-7.
44. Ferracane JL, Condon JR. Rate of elution of leachable components from composite. Dent Mater 1990;6:282-7.
45. Hofman N, Renner J, Hugo B, Klaiber B. Elution of leachable components from resin composites after plasma arc vs. standard or soft-start halogen light irradiation. J Dent 2002;30:223-32.
46. Konradson K, van Dijken JWV. IL-1 levels in gingival crevicular fluid adjacent to restorations of calcium aluminate cement and resin composite. J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:462-6.
47. Craig RG. Restorative dental materials. St Louis, Mo: Mosby Year Book Inc; 1997. p. 146-52.