ZEHRA SÜSGÜN YILDIRIM, ELİF PINAR BAKIR, Şehmus BAKIR, Mehmet Salih AYDIN

ÖZ Diş hekimliğinde biyouyumluluk ve değerlendirme yöntemleri

Dental materyallerin biyouyumluluğu; oral dokular üzerine zararlı etkilerinin en az seviyede olması şeklinde tarif edilmektedir. Bu etkinin derecesi; hastaya, materyalin fonksiyonuna, gücüne, yerleştirildiği koşullara ve zamana bağlı olarak değişir. Kullanıma sunulacak materyallerin güvenilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi önemlidir. Dental materyallerin biyouyumluluğunu değerlendirmede genellikle; in vitro testler -> hayvan deneyleri -> klinik kullanım testleri şeklinde, sıralı klasik bir paradigma kullanılmaktadır. Diş hekimi yeni bir materyali kullanmaya karar verirken, farklı araştırma sonuçlarını incelemeli ve hastanın taleplerinin yanı sıra, risk-yarar analizi de yapmalıdır.

Biocompatibility and assessment methods in dentistry

Biocompatibility of dental materials has been described as to be minumum harmful effects on oral tissues. The degree of this effect changes based on patient, material, function, strength, placement conditions and time. It is important to evaluate the reliability of the materials to be used. For the evaluation of dental materials’ biocompatibility; a classic paradigm in the form of in vitro tests → animal experiments → clinical usage tests is often used. While deciding to use a new material, dentist should examine different research results and make a riskbenefit analysis as well as patient's request.

PDF

___

1. Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practioners. J Prosth Dent 2001; 86: 203-9.
2. Uzun İH, Bayındır F. [Testing procedures for biocompatibility of dental materials]. Gazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2011; 28: 115-22.
3. Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S, Matinlinna JP, Yiu CK, King NM. Biocompatibility of various dental materials in contemporary dentistry: a narrative insight. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry 2013; 4: 9-19.
4. Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D. Biocompatibility of dental materials.1st ed. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; Springer: 2009.
5. Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL. Craig's restorative dental materials. 12th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p.97- 125.
6. Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials 2008; 29: 2941-53.
7. Ratner BD, Bryant SJ. Biomaterials: where we have been and where we are going. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2004; 6: 41-75.
8. Anderson JM. Biological responses to materials. Annu Rev Mater Sci 2001; 31: 81-110.
9. Schmalz G. Strategies to ımprove biocompatibility of dental materials. Curr Oral Health Rep 2014;1: 222–31.
10.Ratner BD. Replacing and renewing: synthetic materials, biomimetics, and tissue engineering in implant dentistry. J Dent Educ 2001; 65: 1340–7.
11.Pagoria D, Lee A, Geurtsen W. The effect of camphorquinone (CQ) and CQ-related photosensitizers on the generation of reactive oxygen species and the production of oxidative DNA damage. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 4091-9.
12.Vamnes JS, Morken T, Helland S, Gjerdet NR. Dental gold alloys and contact hypersensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42: 128-33.
13.Wataha JC. Biocompatibility of dental casting alloys: a review. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 223-34.
14.Cao T, Saw TY, Heng BC, Liu H, Yap AUJ, Ng ML. Comparison of different test models for the assesment of cytotoxicity of composite resins. Journal of Applied Toxicology 2005; 25: 101-8.
15.Saw TY, Cao T, Yap AUJ, Ng MML. Tooth slice organ culture and established cell line culture models for cytotoxicity assesment of dental materials. Toxicol In Vitro 2005; 19: 145-54.
16.Annunziata M, Aversa R, Apicella A, Annunziata A, Apicella D, Buonaiuto C, et al. In vitro biological response to a light-cured composite when used for cementation of composite inlays. Dent Materials 2006; 22: 1081-5.
17.Sengün A, Buyukbas S, Hakki SS. Cytotoxic effects of dental desensitizers on human gingival fibroblasts. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2006; 78: 131-7.
18. Moharamzadeh K, Brook IM, Noort RV. Biocompatibility of resin-based dental materials. Materials 2009; 2: 514- 48.
19.Wataha JC, Lockwood PE, Schedle A, Noda M, Bouillaguet S. Ag, Cu, Hg, and Ni ions alter the metabolism of human monocytes during extended low-dose exposures. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29: 133-9.
20.Maxwell P, Salnikow K. HIF: an oxygen and metal responsive transcription factor. Cancer Biol Ther 2004; 3: 29-35.
21.Wataha JC, Lewis JB, Volkmann KR, Lockwood PE, Messer RLW, Bouillaguet S. Sublethal concentrations of Au(III), Pd(II), and Ni(II) differentially alter inflammatory cytokine secretion from activated monocytes. J BIomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2004; 69: 11-7.
22.Freshney Ian R. Culture of Animal Cells: A Manual of Basic Technique, Fifth Edition. Haboken; John Wiley & Sons: 2005. p.1-216.
23.Murray PE, García Godoy C, García Godoy F. How is the biocompatibilty of dental biomaterials evaluated? Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2007; 12: 258-66.
24.Nicholson JW. The chemistry of medical and dental materials. Cambridge; The Royal Society of Chemistry: 2002. p.186-195.
25.Schweikl H, Hiller KA, Bolay C, Kreissl M, Kreismann W, Nusser A, et al. Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of dental composite materials. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 1713-9.
26.Murray PE, Lumley PJ, Ross HF, Smith AJ. Tooth slice organ culture for cytotoxicity assesment of dental materials. Biomaterials 2000; 21: 1711-21.
27.Tuncer S, Demirci M. [The evaluation of dental materials biocompatibility]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2011;21(2):141-149.
28.Erdemir EO, Şengün A, Ülker M. Cytotoxicity of mouthrinses on epiteheliel cells by micronucleus test. European Journal of Dentistry 2007;1(2):80-5.
29.Ergün G, Sağsen LM, Doğan A, Özkul A, Demirel E. [Examination of cytotoxicity of denture base resins, by agar diffusion and filter diffusion test methods]. Gazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2006; 23: 31-7.
30.Ulu KG, Kırzıoğlu Z. [Dentin permeability and effecting factors af dentin permeability: a review]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2012; 6: 60-5.
31.Ülker HE, Ülker M, Özcan E. [Cytotoxicity evaluation of a new self-adhering flowable composite by dentin barrier test]. Acta Odontologica Turcica 2013;30(3):140-4.
32.About I, Camps J, Burger AS, Mitsiadis 32.About I, Camps J, Burger AS, Mitsiadis TA, Butler W, Franquin JC. Polymerized bonding agents and the differantiation in vitro of human pulp cells into odontoblast-like cells. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 156-63.
33.Schuster U, Schmalz G, Thonemann B, Mendel N, Metzi C. Cytotoxicity testing with three dimensional cultures of transfected pulp-derived cells. J Endod 2001; 27: 259-65.
34.Çiçek C, Bilgiç A. [Cell culture training programme for specialist residents in virology laboratory: A model]. İnfeksiyon Dergisi, 2006; 20(3): 231-41.
35.Schmalz G, Hiller K, Nunez L, Stoll J, Weis K. Permeability characteristics of bovine and human dentin under different pretreatment conditions. J Endod 2001; 27: 23-30.
36.Schmalz G, Schuster U, Thonemann B, Barth M, Esterbauer S. Dentin barrier test with transfected bovine pulp-derived cells. J Endod 2001; 27: 96- 102.
37.Thom DC, Davies JE, Santerre JP, Friedman S. The hemolytic and cytotoxic properties of a zeolitecontaining root filling material in vitro. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics. 2003; 95: 101-8.
38.Pişkin B, Avsever H, Gündüz K. [Evaluation techniques of biocompatibiliy of materials in dentistry]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2009; 10(2): 41-9.
39.Bloching M, Reich W, Schubert J, Grummt T, Sandner A. The influence of oral hygiene on salivary quality in the Ames Test, as a marker for genotoxic effects. Oral Oncol 2007; 43: 933-9.
40.Schweikl H, Schmalz G, Spruss T. The induction of micronuclei in vitro by unpolymerized resin monomers. J Dent Res 2001; 80: 1615-20.
41.Schweikl H, Schmalz G, Weinmann W. Mutagenic acitivity of structurally related oxiranes and siloranes in Salmonella typhimurium. Mutat Res 2002; 521: 19-27.
42.Keiser K, Johnson C, Tipton DA. Cytotoxicity of mineral trioxide aggregate using human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. J Endod 2000; 26: 288-91.
43.Dufrane D, Cornu O, Verraes T, Schecroun N, Banse X, Schneider YJ, et al. In vitro evaluation of acute cytotoxicity of human chemically treated allografts. European Cells and Materials 2001; 1: 52-8.
44.Babich H, Reisbaum AG, Zuckerbraun HL. In vitro response of human gingival epithelial S-G cells to resveratrol. Toxicol Letter 2000; 114: 143–53.
45.Zorba YO, Yıldız M. [The Biocompatibility Tests and Criteria for Adhesive Restorative Materials]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2007; 2: 15-21.
46.Geurtsen W. Biocompatiblity of resin-modified filling materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2000; 11: 333-55.
47.Frankild, S, Volund A, Wahlberg JE, Andersen KE. Comparison of the sensitivities of the Buehler test and the guinea pig maximization test for predictive testing of contact allergy. Acta Derm Venereol 2000; 80: 256-62.
48.About I, Murray PE, Franquin JC, Remusat M, Smith AJ. Pulpal inflammatory responses following non-carious class V restorations. Oper Dent 2001; 26: 336-42.
49.Tan iC, Finger WJ. Effect of smear layer thickness on bond strenght mediated by three All-in-one self¬etching priming adhesives. J Adhes Dent 2002; 4: 283-9.
50.Murray PE, Windsor LJ, Symth TW, Hafez AA, Cox CF. Analysis of pulpal reactions to restorative procedures, materials, pulp capping, and future therapies. Crit Rev Oral Bio Med 2002; 13: 509-20.
51.Hauman CHJ, Love RM. Biocompatibility of dental materials used in contemporary endodontic therapy: a review, part 1. Intracanal drugs and substances. Int Endodon J. 2003; 36: 75-85.
52.Costa CS, Hebling J, Randall RC. Human pulp response to resin cements used to bond inlay restorations. Dent Mat 2006; 22: 954-62.
53.Mjör IA. Minimum requirement for new dental materials. J Oral Rehabil 2007; 34: 907-12.
54.Bayne SC. Dental restoration for oral rehabilitation-testing of laboratory properties versus clinical performance for clinical decision making. J Oral Rehabil 2007; 34: 921-32.