Yeliz HAYRAN, Şükran YILMAZ, Yasemin KESKİN

Cytotoxicity of polymethylmethacrylate copolymers

Aim: This study aimed to determine the cytotoxicity of polymethylmethacrylate copolymers.Material and Methods: The polymethylmethacrylate resin was used to fabricate the samples. Ethyl-methacrylate, butylmethacrylateand isobutyl-methacrylate, were used to form the copolymerization of polymethylmethacrylate. 10%-20%-30%-40%ethyl-methacrylate, butyl-methacrylate and isobutyl-methacrylate monomers were added to the methyl-methacrylate, which is themonomer of the control group, and 13 different groups were formed. Five specimens (n=5) for cytotoxicity test were prepared foreach group. Cytotoxicity effects of the resins at 24th and 48th hours were evaluated by MTT assay. The data of the cytotoxicity testwas analyzed by applying one-way variance analysis.Results: The effect of monomer type and monomer percent on cell viability was significant in both periods (p< 0.01). The percentageof cell viability of all groups at both times was over 90%. The cell viability showed a tendency to decrease by increasing the percentageof monomer added in both periods. The highest and lowest cell viability in 24th hours were observed in 10% ethyl-methacrylate and30% butyl-methacrylate groups respectively, while the highest and lowest cell viability in a 48th hour was observed in 10% butylmethacrylateand 40% butyl-methacrylate groups, respectively.Conclusion: The cytotoxic effects of copolymer resins were not observed at 24th and 48th hours. Cell viability was found at more than90% in both periods. It was shown that the copolymer resins formed by the addition of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% by volume of isobutylmethacrylate,butyl-methacrylate, and ethyl-methacrylate to the methyl-methacrylate were biocompatible materials.

PDF

___

1. Consani RLX, de Paula AB, Fugolin APP, et al. Effect of the combination of a crosslinking agent and a thiourethane additive on the properties of acrylic denture bases processed with microwave energy. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019;98:90-5.
2. Jagger DC, Harrison A, Jandt KD. The reinforcement of dentures. J Oral Rehabil 1999;26:185-94.
3. Praveen B, Babaji HV, Prasanna BG, et al. comparison of impact strength and fracture morphology of different heat cure denture acrylic resins: an in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2014;6:12-6.
4. Cunha TR, Regis RR, Bonatti MR, et al. Influence of incorporation of fluoroalkyl methacrylates on roughness and flexural strength of a denture base acrylic resin. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:103-7.
5. Umemoto K, Kurata S, Morishita K, et al. Basic study of a new soft resin applied with bisfunctional siloxane oligomer. Dent Mater J 2007;26:656-8.
6. Sahin O, Ozdemir AK, Turgut M, et al. Investigation of flexural strength and cytotoxicity of acrylic resin copolymers by using different polymerization methods. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7:98-107.
7. Jagger D, Jagger R, Allen S, et al. An investigation into the transverse and impact strength ofhigh strength’denture base acrylic resins. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:263-7.
8. Phillips R. Chemistry of The Synthetic Resins. In: Dyson J, eds. Science of Dental Materials. 9th Edition. Philadelphia: WB Saunders;1991. p.166-8.
9. Arlen M, Dadmun, MD. The reinforcement of polystyrene and poly (methyl methacrylate) interfaces using alternating copolymers. Polymer 2003;44:6883-9.
10. Lyatskaya Y, Balazs AC. Using copolymer mixtures to compatibilize immiscible homopolymer blends. Macromolecules 1996;29:7581-7.
11. Lyatskaya Y, Gersappe, D, Balazs, AC. Effect of copolymer architecture on the efficiency of compatibilizers. Macromolecules 1995;28:6278.
12. Di Lorenzo ML, Frigione M. Compatibilization criteria and procedures for binary blends: a review. J Polym Eng 1997;17:429-59.
13. Moszner N, Fischer UK, Angermann J, et al. Bis-(acrylamide) s as new cross-linkers for resin-based composite restoratives. Dent Mater 2006;22:1157-62.
14. Hayran Y, Keskin Y. Flexural strength of polymethyl methacrylate copolymers as a denture base resin. Dent Mater J 2019;38:678-86.
15. Wong, JY, Bronzino, JD. Biomaterials. In: Wong, JY, Bronzino, JD, eds. Biomedical Engineering Handbook. 1th edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press and IEEE Press;1995. p.530-610.
16. Koutis D, Freeman S. Allergic contact stomatitis caused by acrylic monomer in a denture. Australas J Dermatol 2001;42:203-6.
17. Lunder T, Rogl-Butina M. Chronic urticaria from an acrylic dental prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;43:232-3.
18. International Organization for Standardization . ISO 10993- 12. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices. Sample Preparation and Reference Materials 2002.
19. Chaves CA, Machado AL, Vergani CE, et al. Cytotoxicity of denture base and hard chairside reline materials: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:114-27.
20. Chen F, Wu T, Cheng X. Cytotoxic effects of denture adhesives on primary human oral keratinocytes, fibroblasts and permanent L 929 cell lines. Gerodontology 2014;31:4- 10.
21. Kim RW, Lee SY, Kim SG, et al. Antimicrobial, antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of Dendropanax morbifera Léveille extract for mouthwash and denture cleaning solution. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:172-80.
22. Procópio A, da Silva R, Maciel J, et al. Antimicrobial and cytotoxic effects of denture base acrylic resin impregnated with cleaning agents after long-term immersion. Toxicol In Vitro 2018;52:8-13.
23. Li J, Chang W, Lin J, et al. Cytokine release from osteoblasts in response to ultrasound stimulation. Biomaterials 2003;24:2379-85.
24. Leelanarathiwat K, Minato K, Katsuta Y, et al. Cytotoxicity of hydroxyapatite-tyrosine complex with gray titania coating on titanium alloy surface to L929 mouse fibroblasts. Dent Mater J 2019;38:573-8.
25. 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 Investig 2019;23:133-9.
26. Schmalz G. Use of cell cultures for toxicity testing of dental materials—advantages and limitations. J Dent 1994;22:S6- S11.
27. Engler MLPD, Güth JF, Keul C, et al. Residual monomer elution from different conventional and CAD/CAM dental polymers during artificial aging. Clin Oral Investig. 2019
28. Sipahi C, Ozen J, Ural UA, et al. The effect of two fibre impregnation methods on the cytotoxicity of a glass and carbon fibre-reinforced acrylic resin denture base material on oral epithelial cells and fibroblasts. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:666-73.
29. Huang FM, Tai KW, Hu CC, et al. Cytotoxic effects of denture base materials on a permanent human oral epithelial cell line and on primary human oral fibroblasts in vitro. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:439-43.
30. Tsuchiya H, Hoshino Y, Tajima K, et al. Leaching and cytotoxicity of formaldehyde and methyl methacrylate from acrylic resin denture base materials. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:618-24.
31. Jorge JH, Giampaolo ET, Machado AL, et al. Cytotoxicity of denture base acrylic resins: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:190-3.
32. Jorge JH, Giampaolo ET, Vergani CE, et al. Cytotoxicity of denture base resins: effect of water bath and microwave postpolymerization heat treatments. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:340-4.
33. International Organization for Standardization . ISO 10993- 5. Biological evaluation of dental devices1999.
34. Lefebvre CA, Knoernschild KL, Schuster GS. Cytotoxicity of eluates from light-polymerized denture base resins. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:644-50.
35. Sheridan PJ, Koka S, Ewoldsen NO, et al. Cytotoxicity of denture base resins. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10:73-7.
36. Campanha NH, Pavarina AC, Giampaolo ET, et al. Cytotoxicity of hard chairside reline resins: effect of microwave irradiation and water bath postpolymerization treatments. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:195-201.
37. Lai YL, Chen YT, Lee SY, et al. Cytotoxic effects of dental resin liquids on primary gingival fibroblasts and periodontal ligament cells in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:1165-72.