IADR Abstract Archives

Cytotoxicity of “Tooth Colored“ Materials used in Posterior Teeth

Objectives: "Tooth colored" restorations have been increasingly used for posterior restorations in recent years instead of dental amalgam. New formulations with simplified handling procedures (bulk-fill-techniques, flowables) and/or reduced shrinkage strain/stress have been introduced to the market. The aims of the present study were to compare the cytotoxicities of two bulk-fill composites, two flowables, one glass-ionomer-cement and one shrinkage-reduced composite and to analyse the influence of increment thickness of the light/chemically cured bulk-fill materials on cytotoxicity.

Methods: 18 specimens of SureFilSDR (SDR, Dentsply), Vertise Flow (VF, Kerr), GrandioSO Flow (GS, Voco), TetricEvoCeram BulkFill (TE, Ivoclar Vivadent), ChemFil Rock (CFR, Dentsply) and Filtek Silorane (FS, 3MEspe) were prepared in teflon-blocks containing 5mm diameter cylindrical holes (cylinder-height 2mm) (5/2 specimens), covered with a polyethylene-foil and if required, light-cured from one end according to the manufacturers recommendations with a LED curing-light (DEMI, Demetron, light intensity > 800 mW/cm²). Bulk-fill materials (SDR, TE, CFR) were additionally produced in moulds with 5mm diameter and 4mm cylinder height (5/4 specimens) and if light curing was required, were cured from either one end (half-cured specimens, hc) or both ends (double-cured specimens, dc). Specimens were added to L929-mouse-fibroblast cultures immediately after production. Glass specimens were used as controls. Cytotoxicity was determined after 72 hours by flow-cytometry. Data were analysed by ANOVA with Tukey’s adjustment for multiplicity.

Results: A rank order of cytotoxicity was established based on mean values (Table 1, means with the same letter are not significantly different, data presented as a percentage of controls).

Tukey grouping				Mean (percentage of controls)	N	Substance
		A		99.2 (±9.3)	18	CFR 5/4
B		A		96.0 (±12.8)	18	FS 5/2
B		A	C	93.4 (±8.2)	18	CFR 5/2
B	D	A	C	84.6 (±14.8)	18	SDR 5/2
B	D		C	82.3 (±25.5)	18	GS 5/2
	D		C	78.3 (±13.4)	18	SDR 5/4 dc
	D		C	78.2 (±13.4)	18	SDR 5/4 hc
	D	E		74.1 (±15.3)	18	VF 5/2
F		E		61.8 (±12.0)	18	TE 5/2
F		G		46.7 (±13.9)	18	TE 5/4 dc
		G		41.4 (±13.7)	18	TE 5/4 hc

Conclusion: This study shows that FS and the bulk-fill materials CFR and SDR showed the least cytotoxicity of the materials tested whereas the cytotoxic effect was more pronounced for TE. Within the bulk-fill materials (CFR, SDR, TE), there was no statistically significant difference in cytotoxicity when tested in 2mm or 4mm increments.

Division: IADR/LAR General Session
Meeting: 2012 IADR/LAR General Session (Iguaçu Falls, Brazil)
Location: Iguaçu Falls, Brazil
Year: 2012
Final Presentation ID: 199
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Materials 5: Biocompatibility and Biologic Effects

Authors

Schedle, Andreas ( Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, N/A, Austria )

Franz, Alexander ( Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, N/A, Austria )

Graf, Alexandra ( Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, N/A, Austria )

Moritz, Andreas ( Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, N/A, Austria )

SESSION INFORMATION

Oral Session
Bacteria: Biocompatibility and Biologic Effects
06/20/2012