Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cytotoxic effects to mouse and human gingival fibroblasts of a nanohybrid ormocer versus dimethacrylate-based composites

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Tooth-colored composites have emerged as a standard restorative material in caries therapy and have largely replaced materials such as silver amalgam or glass ionomer cements. In addition to their superior esthetics and desirable mechanical properties, composites also comprise negative characteristics, such as wear, shrinkage, and an adverse biocompatibility. Modifications of classic resin-based dental composites have been developed to overcome these shortcomings. For example, ormocers are innovative inorganic-organic hybrid polymers that form a siloxane network modified by the incorporation of organic groups. Recently, a new ormocer, Admira Fusion (VOCO), was introduced to composite technology. The absence of cytotoxic matrix monomers leads to the hypothesis that ormocers have improved biocompatibility compared to resin-based dental restorative materials.

Materials and methods

The aim of this study was to compare the cytotoxic effects of Admira Fusion to a nanohybrid composite (GrandioSO, VOCO) and a nanofiller composite (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M Espe) on the standard dermal mouse fibroblasts (L929) and human gingival fibroblasts (GF-1) via a Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) assay.

Results

Admira Fusion was significantly less cytotoxic than GrandioSO and Filtek Supreme XTE to both the standard mouse dermal fibroblasts (L929) and human gingival fibroblasts.

Conclusions

Compared to other resin-based dental restorative materials, the ormocer (Admira Fusion) possesses a superior biocompatibility in vitro. Future research studies are needed to confirm our results.

Clinical significance

Clinically, dental practitioners and their patients might benefit from Admira Fusion in terms of reduced adverse biologic reactions compared to resin-based dental restorative materials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goldberg M (2008) In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resin components: a review. Clin Oral Investig 12(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferracane JL (1994) Elution of leachable components from composites. J Oral Rehabil 21(4):441–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carmichael AJ, Gibson JJ, Walls AW (1997) Allergic contact dermatitis to bisphenol-A-glycidyldimethacrylate (BIS-GMA) dental resin associated with sensitivity to epoxy resin. Br Dent J 183(8):297–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Geurtsen W, Lehmann F, Spahl W, Leyhausen G (1998) Cytotoxicity of 35 dental resin composite monomers/additives in permanent 3T3 and three human primary fibroblast cultures. J Biomed Mater Res 41(3):474–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Engelmann J, Leyhausen G, Leibfritz D, Geurtsen W (2002) Effect of TEGDMA on the intracellular glutathione concentration of human gingival fibroblasts. J Biomed Mater Res 63(6):746–751

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chang HH, Guo MK, Kasten FH, Chang MC, Huang GF, Wang YL, Wang RS, Jeng JH (2005) Stimulation of glutathione depletion, ROS production and cell cycle arrest of dental pulp cells and gingival epithelial cells by HEMA. Biomaterials 26(7):745–753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stanislawski L, Daniau X, Lauti A, Goldberg M (1999) Factors responsible for pulp cell cytotoxicity induced by resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Biomed Mater Res 48(3):277–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jaffer F, Finer Y, Santerre JP (2002) Interactions between resin monomers and commercial composite resins with human saliva derived esterases. Biomaterials 23(7):1707–1719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fleming GJ, Hall DP, Shortall AC, Burke FJ (2005) Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with posterior filling materials of varying reported volumetric shrinkage values. J Dent 33(2):139–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lutz F, Krejci I (2000) Amalgam substitutes: a critical analysis. J Esthet Dent 12(3):146–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gregor L, Dorien L, Bortolotto T, Feilzer AJ, Krejci I (2016) Marginal integrity of low-shrinking versus methacrylate-based composite: effect of different one-step self-etch adhesives. Odontology

  12. Susila AV, Balasubramanian V (2016) Correlation of elution and sensitivity of cell lines to dental composites. Dent Mater 32(3):e63–e72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Al-Ahdal K, Silikas N, Watts DC (2015) Development of viscoelastic stability of resin-composites incorporating novel matrices. Dent Mater 31(12):1561–1566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bacchi A, Feitosa VP, da Silva Fonseca AS, Cavalcante LM, Silikas N, Schneider LF (2015) Shrinkage, stress, and modulus of dimethacrylate, ormocer, and silorane composites. J Conserv Dent 18(5):384–388

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wolter H, Storch W, Ott H (1994) New inorganic/organic copolymers (ORMOCERs) for dental applications. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 346:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM (2014) Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in class I and class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. Oper Dent 39(1):32–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Monsarrat P, Garnier S, Vergnes JN, Nasr K, Grosgogeat B, Joniot S (2017) Survival of directly placed ormocer-based restorative materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Dent Mater 33(5):e212-e20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moszner N, Gianasmidis A, Klapdohr S, Fischer UK, Rheinberger V (2008) Sol-gel materials 2. Light-curing dental composites based on ormocers of cross-linking alkoxysilane methacrylates and further nano-components. Dent Mater 24(6):851–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Al-Hiyasat AS, Darmani H, Milhem MM (2005) Cytotoxicity evaluation of dental resin composites and their flowable derivatives. Clin Oral Investig 9(1):21–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kydd WL, Daly CH (1982) The biologic and mechanical effects of stress on oral mucosa. J Prosthet Dent 47(3):317–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Skin H-PA (1998) Mucosal reactions associated with dental materials. Eur J Oral Sci 106(2 Pt 2):707–712

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wataha JC, Lockwood PE, Bouillaguet S, Noda M (2003) In vitro biological response to core and flowable dental restorative materials. Dent Mater 19(1):25–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hensten-Pettersen A, Helgeland K (1981) Sensitivity of different human cell lines in the biologic evaluation of dental resin-based restorative materials. Scand J Dent Res 89(1):102–107

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Theilig C, Tegtmeier Y, Leyhausen G, Geurtsen W (2000) Effects of BisGMA and TEGDMA on proliferation, migration, and tenascin expression of human fibroblasts and keratinocytes. J Biomed Mater Res 53(6):632–639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eljezi T, Pinta P, Richard D, Pinguet J, Chezal JM, Chagnon MC, Sautou V, Grimandi G, Moreau E (2017) In vitro cytotoxic effects of DEHP-alternative plasticizers and their primary metabolites on a L929 cell line. Chemosphere 173:452–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ishiyama M, Miyazono Y, Sasamoto K, Ohkura Y, Ueno K (1997) A highly water-soluble disulfonated tetrazolium salt as a chromogenic indicator for NADH as well as cell viability. Talanta 44(7):1299–1305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. He SJ, Cao J, Li YS, Yang JC, Zhou M, Qu CY, Zhang Y, Shen F, Chen Y, Li MM, Xu LM (2016) CdSe/ZnS quantum dots induce photodynamic effects and cytotoxicity in pancreatic cancer cells. World J Gastroenterol 22(21):5012–5022

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu S, Yang H, Wan L, Cai HW, Li SF, Li YP, Cheng JQ, Lu XF (2011) Enhancement of cytotoxicity of antimicrobial peptide magainin II in tumor cells by bombesin-targeted delivery. Acta Pharmacol Sin 32(1):79–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Enzenhofer E, Kadletz L, Stanisz I, Kotowski U, Seemann R, Schmid R, Thurnher D, Heiduschka G (2017) Effect of the histone deacetylase inhibitor resminostat on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell lines. Head Neck 39:900–907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Miyamoto T, Min W, Lillehoj HS (2002) Lymphocyte proliferation response during Eimeria tenella infection assessed by a new, reliable, nonradioactive colorimetric assay. Avian Dis 46(1):10–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Failli A, Legitimo A, Orsini G, Castagna M, Spisni R, Miccoli P, Consolini R (2013) Antiproliferative effects of 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin in colon cancer cell lines: comparison of three different cytotoxicity assays. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 27(1):275–284

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Durner J, Obermaier J, Draenert M, Ilie N (2012) Correlation of the degree of conversion with the amount of elutable substances in nano-hybrid dental composites. Dent Mater 28(11):1146–1153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hanks CT, Strawn SE, Wataha JC, Craig RG (1991) Cytotoxic effects of resin components on cultured mammalian fibroblasts. J Dent Res 70(11):1450–1455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Batarseh G, Windsor LJ, Labban NY, Liu Y, Gregson K (2014) Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate induction of apoptotic proteins in pulp fibroblasts. Oper Dent 39(1):E1–E8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Chang HH, Chang MC, Lin LD, Lee JJ, Wang TM, Huang CH, Yang TT, Lin HJ, Jeng JH (2010) The mechanisms of cytotoxicity of urethane dimethacrylate to Chinese hamster ovary cells. Biomaterials 31(27):6917–6925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Alshali RZ, Salim NA, Sung R, Satterthwaite JD, Silikas N (2015) Analysis of long-term monomer elution from bulk-fill and conventional resin-composites using high performance liquid chromatography. Dent Mater 31(12):1587–1598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Amato PA, Martins RP, dos Santos Cruz CA, Capella MV, Martins LP (2014) Time reduction of light curing: influence on conversion degree and microhardness of orthodontic composites. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146(1):40–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Caughman WF, Caughman GB, Shiflett RA, Rueggeberg F, Schuster GS (1991) Correlation of cytotoxicity, filler loading and curing time of dental composites. Biomaterials 12(8):737–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Randolph LD, Palin WM, Leloup G, Leprince JG (2016) Filler characteristics of modern dental resin composites and their influence on physico-mechanical properties. Dent Mater 32(12):1586–1599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bouillaguet S, Shaw L, Gonzalez L, Wataha JC, Krejci I (2002) Long-term cytotoxicity of resin-based dental restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 29(1):7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ferracane JL, Condon JR (1990) Rate of elution of leachable components from composite. Dent Mater 6(4):282–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Moharamzadeh K, Van Noort R, Brook IM, Scutt AM (2007) Cytotoxicity of resin monomers on human gingival fibroblasts and HaCaT keratinocytes. Dent Mater 23(1):40–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank VOCO for the financial support.

Funding

This work was supported by VOCO.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tissue Regeneration and Oral Biology Work Group, Department of Prosthodontics, Georg August University, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany

    Andrea Schubert, Christopher Ziegler, Andrea Bernhard, Ralf Bürgers & Nicolai Miosge

Authors
  1. Andrea Schubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Ziegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Bernhard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ralf Bürgers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicolai Miosge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolai Miosge.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

We dedicate this work to our lab technician Andrea Bernhard who passed away shortly after the results were gathered.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schubert, A., Ziegler, C., Bernhard, A. et al. Cytotoxic effects to mouse and human gingival fibroblasts of a nanohybrid ormocer versus dimethacrylate-based composites. Clin Oral Invest 23, 133–139 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2419-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2419-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation