Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Ribeirão Preto Dental School, University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Prosthet Dent. 2012 Feb;107(2):114-27. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60037-7.
Adverse reactions to the materials used for the fabrication and reline of removable denture bases have been observed.
The purpose of this study was to systematically review the published literature on the cytotoxicity of denture base and hard reline materials.
MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases for the period January 1979 to December 2009 were searched with the following key words: (biocompatibility OR cytotoxic* OR allergy OR "burning mouth" OR "cell culture techniques") AND ("acrylic resins" OR denture OR monomer OR relin* OR "denture liners"). The inclusion criteria included in vitro studies using either animal or human cells, in which the cytotoxicity of the denture base and hard chairside reline resins was tested. Studies of resilient lining materials and those that evaluated other parameters such as genotoxicity and mutagenicity were excluded. Articles published in the English language and in peer-reviewed journals focusing on the cytotoxicity of these materials were reviewed.
A total of 1443 articles were identified through the search. From these, 20 studies were judged to meet the selection criteria and were included in the review. In the majority of the studies, continuous cell lines were exposed to eluates of specimens made from the materials, and mitochondrial activity was used to estimate cell viability. The tested acrylic resins were grouped according to 5 major categories: (1) heat-polymerized; (2) microwave-polymerized; (3) autopolymerizing; (4) light-polymerized; and (5) hard chairside reliners.
This review provided some evidence that the heat-polymerized resins showed lower cytotoxic effects than autopolymerizing denture base acrylic resins and light or dual polymerized reline resins. However, because of the large number of variables in the reviewed literature, a definitive conclusion could not be drawn.
已经观察到对用于制作和修复可摘义齿基托的材料的不良反应。
本研究旨在系统地回顾已发表的关于义齿基托和硬衬材料细胞毒性的文献。
通过 MEDLINE 中的 PubMed、Google Scholar 和 Scopus 数据库,检索 1979 年 1 月至 2009 年 12 月期间的文献,使用以下关键词:(生物相容性或细胞毒性*或过敏或“灼口综合征”或“细胞培养技术”)和(“丙烯酸树脂”或义齿或单体或修复或“义齿衬里”)。纳入标准包括使用动物或人类细胞的体外研究,其中测试了义齿基托和硬椅旁修复树脂的细胞毒性。排除弹性衬里材料的研究和评估其他参数(如遗传毒性和致突变性)的研究。综述了以这些材料细胞毒性为重点的发表在英语同行评议期刊上的文章。
通过检索共确定了 1443 篇文章。其中,有 20 项研究被认为符合选择标准,并被纳入综述。在大多数研究中,连续细胞系暴露于从这些材料制成的标本的浸提物中,并使用线粒体活性来估计细胞活力。测试的丙烯酸树脂根据 5 个主要类别进行分组:(1)热聚合;(2)微波聚合;(3)自聚合;(4)光聚合;和(5)硬椅旁修复剂。
本综述提供了一些证据表明,热聚合树脂的细胞毒性低于自聚合义齿基托丙烯酸树脂和光聚合或双重聚合修复树脂。然而,由于综述文献中的变量很多,因此无法得出明确的结论。