W. Frank Caughman

Correlation of cytotoxicity, filler loading and curing time of dental composites.

Previous studies have shown that dental resin composites tested in cell culture produce cytotoxic effects on human gingival tissues. In this study, the cytotoxic potential of resin composites on primary human gingival fibroblast cultures was evaluated, based on inhibition of cellular protein synthesis measured by [35S] methionine incorporation. Both resin content and percentage of monomer conversion were considered as potential causes of cytotoxicity. Three resin composites were selected to provide a range of filler content from 45 to 86 wt%. Duplicate sample discs (1 mm thick x 10 mm diameter) of each composite were polymerized for 15, 30 and 60 s, followed by heat (110 degrees C, 10 min), and the degree of monomer conversion for each sample group was measured using Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometry. Identically fabricated discs were placed into 35 mm culture dishes with gingival fibroblasts and incubated for 24 h at 37 degrees C. The cell monolayers then were labelled at 24 h with [35S] methionine, washed and solubilized; then incorporated radioactivity was quantitated by liquid scintillation spectrometry. For each composite, as the percentage of monomer conversion increased, cellular toxicity decreased. In comparing different composites having similar monomer conversions, it was found that the filler/resin ratio was not the only factor determining the composites relative toxicity.

Glass ionomer and composite resin cements: Effects on oral cells

Because the cement interfaces of restorations can approximate the periodontium, it is critical to determine the biocompatibility of cements. In this study, the cytotoxic potential of resin luting agents on cultures of gingival fibroblasts and oral epithelial cells was evaluated for direct microscopic cytotoxicity, cell morbidity, impaired adherence, and inhibition of macromolecular synthesis. Visible effects ranged from severe toxicity with inadequately polymerized composite resin to no detectable morphologic cell damage by a glass ionomer cement, but inhibition of protein and RNA synthesis varied with the material and cell type. The glass ionomer cement demonstrated no morphologic damage, but exhibited inhibition of macromolecular synthesis in gingival fibroblasts. These results confirmed that in vitro metabolic assays are appropriate for examining the biologic effects of materials.

Effect of dentin desensitizers and cementing agents on retention of full crowns using standardized crown preparations

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Past research has not controlled preparation surface area when examining the influence of dentin desensitizers on the retentive strength of cemented cast crowns, leading to inconsistent results. PURPOSE This research controlled crown preparation surface area and evaluated the effect of various dentin desensitizers and conventional cementing agents on the in vitro retentive strength of cast crowns. METHODS AND MATERIAL Freshly extracted human molars were prepared for a standardized crown preparation (26 degrees total convergence, 4 mm axial height) with a custom-made pantograph. Dentin desensitizers included none (control), a polymerizable material (All-Bond 2), and a nonpolymerizable desensitizer (Gluma Desensitizer). Cementing agents included zinc phosphate (Flecks), glass ionomer (Ketac-Cem), resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II), and resin cement (Panavia 21). Twelve teeth were prepared for each test condition (144 teeth total). Individual castings were made from a base metal alloy (Rexillium III). Crowns were removed after storage at 26 degrees C for 48 hours at 100% relative humidity using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.27 mm/min. The proportion of cement retained on the tooth and casting after debonding was quantified according to treatment. Statistical treatment included 1- and 2-way ANOVAs, followed by the Tukey-Kramer post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05.Results. Resin cement exhibited the highest retentive strength and all dentin treatments resulted in significantly different retentive values (All-Bond 2 (5.68 +/- 0.70 MPa) > control (4.67 +/- 0.48 MPa) > Gluma (4.12 +/- 0.37 MPa)). Retention of resin-modified glass ionomer was between the resin cement and glass ionomer groups: All-Bond 2 (3.46 +/- 0.26 MPa) > Gluma (2.81 +/- 0.15 MPa) = control (2.96 +/- 0.18 MPa). Conventional glass ionomer values were between those of Fuji Plus and zinc phosphate groups: All Bond 2 (2.23 +/- 0. 20 MPa) = control (2.36 +/- 0.20 MPa) > Gluma (1.98 +/- 0.23 MPa). Zinc phosphate had the lowest retention values: control (1.68 +/- 0. 08 MPa) > Gluma (0.81 +/- 0.11 MPa) > All-Bond 2 (0.67 +/- 0.14 MPa). The majority of cement was retained on the debonded tooth surface versus the casting, with the exception of zinc phosphate when used with dentin pretreatments. CONCLUSION Controlled crown surface areas reduced the variation in strength values permitting high discrimination among retention values of desensitizer/cement combinations. In all but 1 combination, Gluma desensitizer significantly decreased crown retention. With resin cement and resin-modified glass ionomer, use of All-Bond 2 desensitizer significantly increased crown retention values.