Cytotoxicity and reactive oxygen species production induced by different co-monomer eluted from nanohybrid dental composites

BMC Oral Health

Research

Bum-Soon Lim¹  Shin Hye Chung¹  En-Shi Jiang²  Wonjoon Moon³  Juhea Chang⁴ 

[1] Department of Dental Biomaterials Science, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, 03080, Seoul, Republic of Korea;Department of Dental Biomaterials Science, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, 03080, Seoul, Republic of Korea;Department of Stomatology, Yanbian University and Affiliated Hospital of Yanbian University, 133000, Yanji, China;Department of Dental Biomaterials Science, School of Dentistry and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, 03080, Seoul, Republic of Korea;Harvard Medical School, 02115, Boston, MA, USA;Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, 02114, Boston, MA, USA;National Dental Care Center for Persons With Special Needs, Seoul National University Dental Hospital, 101 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, 03080, Seoul, Republic of Korea;

关键词: Nanohybrid;    Dental composites;    Eluates;    Cytotoxicity;    Reactive oxygen species;    Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12903-023-02710-y

 received in 2022-07-07, accepted in 2023-01-03,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundSafety issues for dental restorative composites are critical to material selection, but, limited information is available to dental practitioners. This study aimed to compare the chemical and biological characteristics of three nanohybrid dental composites by assessing filler particle analysis, monomer degree of conversion (DC), the composition of eluates, and cytotoxicity and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production in fibroblasts.MethodsThree nanohybrid composites (TN, Tetric N-Ceram; CX, Ceram X Sphere Tec One; and DN, DenFil NX) were used. The size distribution and morphology of the filler particles were analysed using scanning electron microscopy (n = 5). The DC was measured via micro-Raman spectroscopy (n = 5). For the component analysis, methanol eluates from the light-polymerised composites were evaluated by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (n = 3). The eluates were prepared from the polymerised composites after 24 h in a cell culture medium. A live/dead assay (n = 9) and Water-Soluble Tetrazolium-1 assay (n = 9) were performed and compared with negative and positive controls. The ROS in composites were compared with NC. Statistical significance in differences was assessed using a t-test and ANOVA (α = 0.05).ResultsMorphological variations in different-sized fillers were observed in the composites. The DC values were not significantly different among the composites. The amounts of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) were higher in TN than DN (p = 0.0022) and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) in CX was higher than in others (p < 0.0001). The lowest cell viability was shown in CX (p < 0.0001) and the highest ROS formation was detected in TN (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsThree nanohybrid dental composites exhibited various compositions of filler sizes and resin components, resulting in different levels of cytotoxicity and ROS production. Chemical compositions of dental composites can be considered with their biological impact on safety issues in the intraoral use of dental restorative composites. CX with the highest TEGDMA showed the highest cytotoxicity induced by ROS accumulation. DN with lower TEGDMA and HEMA presented the highest cell viability.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2023

【 图 表 】

42004_2022_803_Article_IEq55.gif

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq18.gif

Fig. 1

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq12.gif

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq5.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

41116_2022_35_Article_IEq573.gif