Al-Hiyasat A S, Darmani H, Milhem M M
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 3030, 221100, Irbid, Jordan.
Clin Oral Investig. 2005 Mar;9(1):21-5. doi: 10.1007/s00784-004-0293-0. Epub 2005 Jan 6.
The release of components from dental composite into surrounding tissue may cause an adverse tissue reaction. Thus, this study investigated the cytotoxicity of three types of dental composites with their flowable derivatives and determined the compounds released from these materials by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis. Fifteen specimens from each composite (Admira, Z250, Tetric Ceram) with fifteen of their flowables (Admira Flow, Tetric Flow, Feltik Flow) were prepared in the form of discs and divided into two groups of 10 and 5 for each material. The first group (10 discs) was used to evaluate the cytotoxicity of the material on balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts by measuring cellular metabolic activity (3{4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl}-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide [MTT] assay) relative to Teflon controls, while the second group (5 discs) was used to determine the leached components from each material into culture medium by HPLC analysis. The results revealed that Z250 and Tetric Ceram were less cytotoxic than their flowable derivatives. However, the ormocer, Admira, was significantly more cytotoxic than Admira Flow. Among the standard composites, Tetric Ceram was the least cytotoxic and Admira the most. Furthermore, Tetric flow was the most cytotoxic and Admira flow was significantly the least cytotoxic among the flowable materials tested. HPLC analysis revealed bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate (bis-GMA) and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) in the eluates of all the materials, while urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) was present in all eluates except that of Feltik Flow. In conclusion, the flowable derivatives are more cytotoxic than the traditional composites whereas the ormocer Admira Flow is less cytotoxic than the Admira composite.
牙科复合树脂的成分释放到周围组织中可能会引起不良的组织反应。因此，本研究调查了三种类型的牙科复合树脂及其可流动衍生物的细胞毒性，并通过高效液相色谱（HPLC）分析确定了这些材料释放的化合物。每种复合树脂（Admira、Z250、Tetric Ceram）及其15种可流动衍生物（Admira Flow、Tetric Flow、Feltik Flow）制备15个圆盘状标本，每种材料分为两组，每组10个和5个。第一组（10个圆盘）用于通过测量相对于聚四氟乙烯对照的细胞代谢活性（3-{4,5-二甲基噻唑-2-基}-2,5-二苯基溴化四唑[MTT]法）来评估材料对balb/c 3T3成纤维细胞的细胞毒性，而第二组（5个圆盘）用于通过HPLC分析确定每种材料释放到培养基中的成分。结果显示，Z250和Tetric Ceram的细胞毒性低于其可流动衍生物。然而，有机陶瓷Admira的细胞毒性明显高于Admira Flow。在标准复合树脂中，Tetric Ceram的细胞毒性最小，Admira的细胞毒性最大。此外，在所测试的可流动材料中，Tetric flow的细胞毒性最大，Admira flow的细胞毒性明显最小。HPLC分析显示，所有材料的洗脱液中均含有双酚A甘油酸酯二甲基丙烯酸酯（bis-GMA）和三乙二醇二甲基丙烯酸酯（TEGDMA），而除Feltik Flow外，所有洗脱液中均含有聚氨酯二甲基丙烯酸酯（UDMA）。总之，可流动衍生物的细胞毒性比传统复合树脂更大，而有机陶瓷Admira Flow的细胞毒性比Admira复合树脂更小。
