You are here

Home » Content

DENTAL MATERYALLERDE BİYOUYUMLULUK DEĞERLENDİRMELERİ

THE EVALUATION OF DENTAL MATERIALS BIOCOMPATIBILITY

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2011

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In dentistry materials with different content and features are produced and used in dental practice. During the application, most of these materials are in contact with dental hard tissues, soft tissues and oral liquids (e.g. saliva, gingival crevicular fluid). Thus, in the selection of new material, besides the mechanical and physical properties also biological characteristics must be taken care. Various tests are used to determine the biocompatibility of materials. The common approach when testing the biological behavior of materials is to start with simple in vitro tests mostly based on cell cultures. If these experiments and investigations of a material's efficiency deliver promising findings, then more comprehensive studies on experimental animals and usage tests (in vivo evaluation) will be performed. The aim of this rewiev was to evaluate the test methods for the biocompatibility of dental materials.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Diş hekimliği uygulamalarında farklı içerik ve özelliklere sahip çok çeşitli materyaller üretilmiş ve klinik kullanıma sunulmuştur. Bu materyallerin çoğu uygulandıklarında diş dokuları, yumuşak doku ve sıvılarla (tükürük, diş eti oluğu sıvısı) temas etmektedir. Böylece yeni bir materyal seçiminde, mekanik ve fiziksel özelliklerin yanında biyolojik özelliklerde göz önüne alınmaktadır. Bir materyalin biyouyumluluğunu saptamak için günümüzde çeşitli testler kullanılmaktadır. Materyallerin biyolojik özelliklerinin test edilmesine genellikle hücre kültürlerinin kullanıldığı basit in vitro test yöntemleri ile başlanır. Değerlendirmelere hayvan testleri ile devam edilir, bu testlerden istenilen sonuçlar elde edildiğinde kullanım testleri ( in vivo değerlendirme) gibi daha kapsamlı çalışmalar yapılmalıdır. Bu derlemenin amacı dental materyaller için uygulanması gereken biyouyumluluk test yöntemlerini değerlendirmektir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-dental-materyallerde-biyouyumluluk-degerlendirmeleri.pdf
  • 2
141-149
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Schmalz G, Dorthe Arenholt-Bindslev. Biocompatibllttyy of Dental Materials.1s ed. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; Springer:2009. p.1-10
2. Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practitioners. JProshetDent 2001;86(2):203-9.
Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg.
J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni
Cilt:21, Sayı: 2, Yıl: 2011, Sayfa: 141-149
TUNCER,
DEMİRC
İ
3. Hanks CT, Wataha JC, Sun Z. In vitro models of biocompatibility: A review. Dent Mater. 1996;12:186-193.
4. Schmalz G, Dorthe Arenholt Bindslev. Biocompatibility of Dental Materials 1st ed. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; Springer:2009. p.13-40
5. Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL. Craig's restorative dental materials. 12th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p.97-125
6. R. Ian Freshney Culture of Animal Cells: A Manual of Basic Technique, Fifth Edition,. Haboken; John Wiley & Sons: 2005.p.1-216
7.
Canda
n Ç., Bilgiç A., Klinik Viroloji Labaratuvarında Uzmanlık Öğrencisine Verilen Hücre Kültürü Eğitim Programı: Bir Model, İnfeksiyon Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Infection) 2006; 20 (3): 231-241
8. Helgason CD, Miller CL. Methods in moleculer biology Third edition. Tatowa; Humana Press:2005. p. 1-12
9. Murray PE, Garda Godoy C, Garda Godoy F.How is the biocompatibilty of dental biomaterials evaluated? Med Oral Patoi Oral Crr Bucal
2007;12(3):E258-66.
10. Aldridge WN. The biochemical principles of toxicology. Exp. Toxicol 1993;5:56-78
11. Nicholson JW.The Chemistry of Medical and Dental Materials. Cambridge; The Royal Society of Chemistry: 2002. p.186-195
12. ISO 7405.Dentistry -- Preclinical evaluation of biocompatibility of medical devices used in dentistry -- Test methods for dental materials.
2009
13. ISO 10993-5. Biological evaluation of medical devices -- Part 5: Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity.
1999
14. Moharamzadeh K, Brook IM, Noort RV. Biocompatibility of Resin-based Dental Materials. Materials. 2009; 2(2): 514-548
15. Polyzois, GL. In vitro evaluation of dental materials. Clin Mater. 1994, 16, 21-60
16. Tang AT, Li J, Ekstrand J, Liu Y.Cytotoxicity tests of in situ polymerized resins: methodological comparisons and introduction of a tissue culture insert as a testing device.J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;45(3):214-22
17. Schmalz, G. The agar overlay method. Int. Endod. J. 1988. 21: 59-66.
18. Wennberg A, Hasselgren G, Tronstad L. A method for toxicity screening of biomaterials using cells cultured on Millipore filters. J Biomed Mater Res
1979;13:109-20.
19. Outhwaite WC, McKenzie DM, Pashley DH. A versatile split-chamber device for studying dentin permeability. J Dent Res 1974;53(6): 1503.
20. Tyas MJ. A method for the in vitro toxicity testing of dental restorative materials. J Dent Res
1977;56: 1285-1290
21. Hume WR. A new technique for screening chemical toxicity to the pulp from dental restorative materials and procedures. J Dent Res 1985; 64:
1322-1325
22. Schmalz G, Garhammer P, Schweiki H. A commercially available cell culture device modified for dentin barrier tests. J Endod 1996;22:249-252
23. 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
24. R. Ian Freshney Culture of Animal Cells: A Manual of Basic Technique, Fifth Edition, John Wiley & Sons 2005, Inc., p:359-373
25. Jenkins N. Methods in Biotechnology, Volume 8: Animal cell biotechnology Totawa NJ, Humana Press p:239-252
26. Babich H, Reisbaum AG, Zuckerbraun HL. In Vitro Response of Human Gingival Epithelial S-G Cells to Resveratrol, Toxicol Letter 2000; 114: 143-53
27. Aksoy Y. Antioksidan Mekanizmada Glutatyonun Rolü. Turkiye Kinik/eri J Med Sci 2002;22(4):442-
8.
28. Lefeuvre M, Amjaad W, Goldberg M, Stanislawski L. TEGDMA induces mitochondrial damage and oxidative stress in human gingival fibroblasts. Biomaterials 2005;26:5130-5137
29. Lefeuvre M, Bourd K, Loriot MA, Goldberg M, Beaune P, Perianin A. TEGDMA modulates glutathionetransferase P1 activity in gingival fibroblasts. J Dent Res 2004;83:914-9.
30. Deneke SM, Fanburg BL. Regulation of cellular glutathione. Am J Physiol 1989; 257: L163-L173
31. Mantellini MG, Botero TM, Yaman P, Dennison JB, Hanks CT, Nör JE. Adhesive resin induces apoptosis and cell-cycle arrest of pulp cells. J Dent Res 2003; 82: 592-596
148
Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg.
J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni
Cilt:21, Sayı: 2, Yıl: 2011, Sayfa: 141-149
TUNCER, DEMİRCİ
32. Maron, D.M., Ames, B.N.: Revised method for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutat Res 1983;
113: 173-215
33. Schweikl, H., Schmalz, G.: Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate induceslarge deletions in the hprt gene of V79 cells. Mutat Res 1999: 438: 71-78.
34. Soderholm KJ Mariotti A. BIS-GMA-based resins in dentistry: Are they safe? Am Dent Assoc 1999;130:
201-209
35. Schmalz G, Dorthe Arenholt-Bindslev. Biocompatibility of dental Materials. 1st ed. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; Springer:2009. P.99-130
36.
Zorb
a YO., Yıldız M. Adeziv restoratif materyallerde biyouyumluluk testleri ve kriterleri. Atatürk Üniv. Di_ Hek. Fak. Derg. 2007: ;Suppl.: 2, S: 15-21
37. Schmalz G. The biocompatiblity of non-amalgam dental filling materials. Eur J Oral Sci
1998;106:696-706.
38. Geurtsen W. Biocompatiblity of resin-modified filling materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med
2000;11:333-355.
39. Frankild, S., Volund, A., Wahlberg, J.E., Andersen, K.E.: 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: 256-262

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com