Online ISSN: 2515-8260

Keywords : biocompatibility


BIOCOMPATIBILITY OF DENTAL RESTORATIVE MATERIALS

Oviya M; Pradeep .; Dhanraj Ganapathy

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2021, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 504-512

Biocompatibility is the ability of a material to elicit a biological response, when applied to the body, without causing a chronic inflammatory reaction, foreign body reaction or toxicity, is related to the interaction of the cell or any biomaterial. A few materials are completely inert from the physiological point of view since, most of the components with a variety of potential toxicity. In addition, chemical reactions during cure of the material may also produce undesirable effects. In order to increase knowledge about the characteristics and properties of materials and their interaction with the biological environment, this study aimed, through literature review, guide and inform didactically professionals and academics on the importance of biocompatibility of restorative materials more direct use in dental practice: amalgam, composite resins and glass ionomer cements.

Biocompatibility In Orthodontics

Amoli Singh; Nidhin Philip Jose; Siddarth Shetty; Shravan Shetty; Ashith M. V

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2020, Volume 7, Issue 7, Pages 381-390

This review aims to summarise the properties, interactions, biocompatibility and associated adverse reactions of the commonly used orthodontic materials in clinical practice.
The recent years have seen the introduction of a variety of new orthodontic products necessitating the need for an all-inclusive training in the dental materials field. It is essential for orthodontists to have the basic knowledge about composition of these materials, their structure and properties. Clinically the interactions of orthodontic materials with the hard tissues in the oral cavity and with other dental materials can lead to the issue cytotoxicity and allergic reactions for both patients and doctors. The background about these interactions will allow the orthodontist to make correct material selections which will provide for adequate treatment mechanics and simultaneously equip him/her with the knowledge to deal with the complex effects of the orthodontic materials in the oral environment
Several electronic databases were searched for relevant research and material regarding biocompatibility and interactions of the commonly used orthodontic materials in clinical practice.The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), meta Register of Controlled Trials, WHO, Digital Dissertations and Google Scholar were used to look for the relevant data. The references and citations of already existing reviews and articles on the issue of biocompatibilty were also searched.
This review is mainly done to attain better knowledge about the biocompatibility of different materials that are used in the orthodontic practice and their associated effects.

Cytotoxic evaluation of directly 3D printed aligners and Invisalign

S Fayyaz Ahamed; S Mohnish Kumar; R K Vijaya kumar,; A S Apros Kanna; K Indrapriya dharshini

European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 2020, Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 1129-1140

Background: Direct 3D printing of aligner trays involve printable materials; the study aims to investigate the in-vitro cytotoxicity of the direct-printed aligner using photopolymer resins and SmartTrackInvisalign tray for varying time intervals on 3T3 mice fibroblast cells using MTT assay.
Materials and Methods: Directed printed aligner trays using two 3D printing materials with SmartTrackInvisalign tray were compared in this study. Samples were placed in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM; 0.1 mg/mL) for 1,3,5& 7 days interval. Cell viability percentage was calculated, and data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance and post hoc tests (α = 0.05).
Results: All materials exhibited slight cytotoxicity on MFCs with a visible trend of a significant increase in cell viability from day 1 to 7. Among the groups, the higher cytotoxicity was by E-Guard clear, and Dental LT, and the least cytotoxicity by Smartrack material. The highest level of cell viability and no cytotoxicity was exhibited by Invisalign (94.07% ± 3.00 of cell viability) at day 7. No statistically significant difference in viability percentage was seen between Dental LT and E-Guard material.
Conclusions: SmartTrackInvisalign material (polyurethane) was found to be more biocompatible, followed by directly printed aligner materials (polymethylmethacrylate). Cytotoxicity was found to be more on the first day for all materials and gradually decreases as day’s progress. The results indicate the increased leaching of material during the initial period of use though the level of cytotoxicity is slight.