Weżgowiec Joanna, Małysa Andrzej, Szlasa Wojciech, Kulbacka Julita, Chwiłkowska Agnieszka, Ziętek Marek, Więckiewicz Mieszko
Department of Experimental Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2024 Oct 29;12:1453888. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1453888. eCollection 2024.
The development of additive manufacturing has the potential to revolutionize the fabrication of medical devices. This technology, also known as 3D printing, offers precise, cost-effective, and personalized approaches, which could be particularly beneficial in the production of intraoral appliances. Despite its promise, research on the biocompatibility of 3D-printed intraoral devices is still limited. Our study aims to address this gap.
We examined the cytotoxicity of materials processed via three techniques commonly used for the fabrication of different intraoral appliances: 3D printing (Dental LT Clear), thermoforming (Duran adjusted with Durasplint LC), and conventional heat-curing (Villacryl H Plus). We also investigated the impact of chemical or UVC disinfection on the biocompatibility of these materials. We assessed the biological effects induced in human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) through both direct contact tests (MTT and LDH assays) and extract tests (PrestoBlue, DCF, and cell death type assays). Additionally, we observed changes in cellular morphology and migration rate under an inverted light microscope. The surface roughness of materials was evaluated using contact profilometry. Statistical analysis was conducted using two-way analysis of variance.
Our findings suggest that all three fabrication techniques induced a slight cytotoxic effect in HGFs, as evidenced by both direct contact and extract tests. However, these materials could be considered nontoxic according to the ISO 10993-5:2009 norm, as the decrease in metabolic activity observed was always less than 30% compared to the untreated control.
This novel study confirms that 3D printing may be a safe alternative to conventional methods for fabricating intraoral appliances. However, further tests assessing the long-term intraoral usage are still needed.
增材制造的发展有可能彻底改变医疗设备的制造方式。这项技术,也被称为3D打印,提供了精确、经济高效且个性化的方法,这在口腔内矫治器的生产中可能特别有益。尽管有前景,但关于3D打印口腔内设备生物相容性的研究仍然有限。我们的研究旨在填补这一空白。
我们研究了通过三种常用于制造不同口腔内矫治器的技术加工的材料的细胞毒性:3D打印(牙科LT Clear)、热成型(用Durasplint LC调整的Duran)和传统热固化(Villacryl H Plus)。我们还研究了化学或紫外线消毒对这些材料生物相容性的影响。我们通过直接接触试验(MTT和LDH测定)和提取物试验(PrestoBlue、DCF和细胞死亡类型测定)评估了在人牙龈成纤维细胞(HGFs)中诱导的生物学效应。此外,我们在倒置光学显微镜下观察了细胞形态和迁移率的变化。使用接触轮廓仪评估材料的表面粗糙度。使用双向方差分析进行统计分析。
我们的研究结果表明,所有三种制造技术在HGFs中均诱导了轻微的细胞毒性作用,直接接触试验和提取物试验均证明了这一点。然而,根据ISO 10993-5:2009标准,这些材料可被视为无毒,因为观察到的代谢活性下降与未处理的对照相比始终小于30%。
这项新研究证实,3D打印可能是制造口腔内矫治器的传统方法的一种安全替代方案。然而,仍需要进一步测试来评估其长期口腔内使用情况。