Comparison of the clinical and preclinical biocompatibility testing of dental materials: Are the ISO usage tests meaningful?

Journal of Biomedical Materials Research - Part A

Volumn 81, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 51-58

  Murray, Peter E ^a   Garcia Godoy, Franklin ^a  

^a NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Calcium hydroxide; Inflammation; Patients; Pulp; Restorative

Indexed keywords

BIOCOMPATIBILITY; GLASS; HISTOLOGY; HYDRATED LIME; PATIENT MONITORING;

CLINICAL RESPONSES; GLASS IONOMER; HISTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS; PULP INFLAMMATORY ACTIVITY;

DENTAL MATERIALS;

AMALGAM; BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; CALCIUM HYDROXIDE; EUGENOL; RESIN; ZINC OXIDE;

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; BIOCOMPATIBILITY; CHILD; DENTISTRY; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; INFLAMMATION; MATERIALS TESTING; NONHUMAN; ORGANIZATION; PREDICTION; PRIMATE DISEASE; SCREENING TEST; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STANDARDIZATION; TOOTH PULP;

ADOLESCENT; ANIMALS; CHILD; DENTAL CEMENTS; DENTAL PULP; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; EVALUATION STUDIES; HUMANS; INFLAMMATION; MACACA MULATTA; MATERIALS TESTING; MODELS, ANIMAL;

EID: 33947233256     PISSN: 15493296     EISSN: 15524965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.31015     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Murray PE, Smith AJ. Saving pulps-A biological basis. An overview. Prim Dent Care 2002;9:21-26.
2. Smith AJ, Murray PE, Lumley PJ. Preserving the vital pulp in operative dentistry. I. A biological approach. Dent Update 2002;29:64-69.
3. Murray PE, About I, Lumley PJ, Franquin JC, Remusat M, Smith AJ. Pulpal repair responses. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132: 482-491.
4. Aldridge WN. The biochemical principles of toxicology. Exp Toxicol 1993;5:56-78.
5. van Loon J, Mars P. Biocompatibility. The latest developments. Med Device Technol 1997;8:20-24.
6. Dentistry-Preclinical evaluation of biocompatibility of medical devices used in dentistry-Test methods for dental materials. International Standards Organization 1996. ISO 7405.
7. Biological evaluation of dental devices. International Standards Organization 1992. ISO 10993.
8. Schmalz G. Agar overlay method. Int Endod J 1988;21:59-66.
9. Schmalz G, Schweikle H, Esch J, Hiller K-A. Evaluation of a dentine barrier test by cytotoxicity testing of various dental cements. J Endod 1996;22:112-115.
10. Cox CF, Keall CL, Keall H, Ostro E, Bergenholtz G. Biocompatibility of surface-sealed dental materials against exposed dental pulps. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57:1-8.
11. Cox CF, Hafez AA, Akimoto N, Otsuki M, Suzuki S, Tarim B. Bicompatibility of primer, adhesive and resin composite systems on non-exposed and exposed pulps on non-human primates. Am J Dent 1998;10:55-63.
12. Mjor IA, Hensten-Pettersen A, Skogedal O. Biologic evaluation of filling materials. A comparison of results using cell culture techniques, implantation tests and pulp studies. Int Endod J 1977; 27:124-129.
13. Hensten-Pettersen N. Comparison of the methods available for assessing cytotoxicity. Int Endod J 1988;21:89-99.
14. Hanks CT, Wataha JC, Sun Z. In vitro models of biocompatibility: A review. Dent Mat 1996;12:186-192.
15. Arenholt-Bindslev D, Horsted-Bindslev P. A simple model for evaluating relative toxicity of root filling materials in cultures of oral fibroblasts. Endod Dent Traumatol 1989;5:219-226.
16. Arenholt-Bindslev D, Bleed H. Characterisation of two types of oral fibroblast with a potential application to cellular toxicity studies: Tooth pulp fibroblasts and buccal mucosal fibroblasts. Int Endod J 1990;23:84-91.
17. Seux D, Couble ML, Hartmann DJ, Gauthier JP, Magloire H. Odontoblast-like cytodifferentiation of human pulp cells in vitro in the presence of a calcium hydroxide-containing cement. Arch Oral Biol 1991;36:117-128.
18. Schweikl H, Schmalz G. Toxicity parameters for cytotoxicity testing of dental materials in two different mammalian cell lines. Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104:292-299.
19. Murray PE, Lumley PJ, Ross HF, Smith AJ. Tooth slice organ culture for cytotoxicity assessment of dental materials. Biomaterials 2000;21:1711-1721.
20. Costa CA, Hebling J, Hanks CT. Current status of pulp capping with adhesive systems: A review. Dent Mat 2000;16:188-197.
21. Park SH, Kim KY. The anticariogenic effect of fluoride in primer, bonding agent, and composite resin in the cavosurface enamel area. Oper Dent 1997;22:115-120.
22. Donly KJ, Segura A, Wefel JS, Hogan MM. Evaluating the effects of fluoride-releasing dental materials on adjacent interproximal caries. J Am Dent Assoc 1999;130:817-825.
23. Qualtrough AJ, Cawte SG, Wilson NH. Influence of different transitional restorations on the fracture resistance of premolar teeth. Oper Dent 2001;26:267-272.
24. Yoshiba K, Yoshiba N, Iwaku M. Histological observations of hard tissue barrier formation in amputated dental pulp capped with tricalcium phosphate containing hydroxide. Endod Dent Traumatol 1994;10:113-120.
25. Foreman PC, Barnes IE. Review of calcium hydroxide. Int Endod J 1990;23:283-297.
26. Stanley HR, Swerdlow H. Reaction of the human pulp to cavity preparation: Results produced by eight different grinding techniques. J Am Dent Assoc 1959;58:49-59.
27. Hume WR. Effect of eugenol on respiraton and division in human pulp, mouse fibroblasts and liver cells in vitro. J Dent Res 1984;63:1262-1265.
28. White KC, Cox CF, Kanca J, Dixon DL, Farmer JB, Snuggs HM. Pulpal response to adhesive resin systems applied to acid-etched vital dentine: Damps versus dry primer application. Quintessence Int 1994;25:259-268.
29. Markowitz K, Moynihan M, Lui M, Kim S. Biological properties of eugenol and zinc oxide-eugenol. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992;73:729-737.
30. Murray PE, About I, Lumley PJ, Smith G, Franquin JC, Smith AJ. Post-operative pulpal responses and dental repair. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:321-329.
31. Murray PE, About I, Lumley PJ, Franquin JC, Remusat M, Smith AJ. Human odontoblast cell numbers after dental injury. J Dent 2000;28:277-285.
32. Murray PE, Smyth TW, About I, Remusat R, Franquin JC, Smith AJ. The effect of etching on bacterial microleakage of an adhesive composite restoration. J Dent 2002;30:29-36.
33. Cox CF. Evaluation and treatment of bacterial microleakage. Am J Dent 1994;7:293-295.
34. Akimoto N, Momoi Y, Kohno A, Suzuki S, Otsuki M, Suzuki S, Cox CF. Biocompatibility of Clearfil Liner Bond 2 and Clearfil AP-X system on nonexposed and exposed primate teeth. Quintessence Int 1998;29:177-188.
35. Tarim B, Hafez AA, Cox CF. Pulpal response to a resin-modified glass-ionomer material on nonexposed and exposed monkey pulps. Quintessence Int 1998;29:535-542.
36. McKay GS. Gram stain modified to improve colour contrast. J Clin Pathol 1970;23:191.
37. Dawson-Saunders B, Trapp RG. Basic and Clinical Biostatistics, 2nd ed. Norwalk, Conn: Appleton & Lange; 1994.
38. Murray PE, Hafez AA, Smith AJ, Cox CF. Bacterial microleakage and pulp inflammation associated with various restorative materials. Dent Mat 2002;18:470-478.
39. Warfvinge J. Morphometric analysis of teeth with inflamed pulp. J Dent Res 1987;66:78-83.
40. Bergenholtz G, Cox CF, Loesche WJ, Syed SA. Bacterial leakage around dental restorations: Its effect on the dental pulp. J Oral Pathol 1982;11:439-450.
41. Donly KJ, Gradgenett C. Dentin demineralization inhibition at restoration margins of Vitremer, Dyract and Compoglass. Am J Dent 1998;11:245-248.
42. Hume WR. Massey WL. Keeping the pulp alive: The pharmacology and toxicology of agents applied to dentine. Aust Dent J 1990;35:32-37.
43. Cox CF, Bergenholtz G, Fitzgerald M, Heys DR, Heys RJ, Avery JK, Baker JA. Capping of the dental pulp mechanically exposed to oral microflora-A 5 week observation of wound healing in the monkey. J Oral Pathol 1982;11:327-339.
44. Cox CF, Suzuki S. Re-evaluating pulp protection: Calcium hydroxide liners vs. cohesive hybridization. J Am Dent Assoc 1994;125:823-831.
45. Swift EJ Jr. Bonding systems for restorative materials-A comprehensive review. Pediatr Dent 1998;20:80-84.
46. Cox CF, White KC, Ramus DL, Farmer JB, Snuggs HM. Reparative dentin: Factors affecting its deposition. Quintessence Int 1992;23:257-270.
47. Stanley HR, Pereira JC, Spiegel E, Broom C, Schultz M. The detection and prevalence of reactive and physiologic sclerotic dentin, reparative dentin and dead tracts beneath various types of dental lesions according to tooth surface and age. J Oral Pathol 1983;12:257-289.
48. Bjorndal L, Mjor IA. Pulp-dentin biology in restorative dentistry. Part 4: Dental caries-characteristics of lesions and pulpal reactions. Quintessence Int 2001;32:7l7-736.
49. Taintor JF, Beisterfield RC, Langeland K. Irritational or reparative dentin: A challenge of nomenclature. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1981;51:442-449.
50. Mjör IA, Ferrari M. Pulp-dentin biology in restorative dentistry. Part 6: Reactions to restorative materials, tooth restoration interfaces, and adhesive techniques. Quintessence Int 2002;33:35-63.
51. Blumenberg B. Biometrical studies upon hominoid teeth: The coefficient of variation, sexual dimorphism and questions of phylogenetic relationship. Biosystems 1985;18:149-184.
52. Finger WJ, Balkenhol M. Practitioner variability effects on dentin bonding with an acetone-based one-bottle adhesive. J Adhes Dent 1999;1:311-314.
53. Waterhouse PJ. Formocresol and alternative primary molar pulpotomy medicaments: A review. Endod Dent Traumatol 1995;11:157-162.
54. Lewis B. Formaldehyde in dentistry: A review for the millennium. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1998;22:167-177.
55. Saw TY, Cao T, Yap AU, Lee Ng MM. Tooth slice organ culture and established cell line culture models for cytotoxicity assessment of dental materials. Toxicol In Vitro 2005;19:145-154.