Journal of Isfahan Dental School

Comparison of Elution of Organic Elements Conventional Composite and Ormocer in Different Environments

Document Type : مقاله‌های پژوهشی

Authors

1 Graduated of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran

3 Postgraduate Student, Department of Oral Radiology, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: It is essential to study the biocompatibility of composite resins, including the leached components and their potential impact on human health. This study investigated the elution of organic components of a conventional composite resin and Ormocer in different environments.
Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, a Teflon mold was used to prepare 32 samples of two types of composite resin (All-purpose methacrylate-based microhybrid composite resin and Ormocer [Admira Fusion]) with a diameter of 6 mm and a height of 2 mm. The samples were immersed in distilled water and methanol. After 24 hours and 7 days, the amounts of TEGDMA, UDMA, and CQ in Ormocer released were checked by a gas chromatography device; the results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests using SPSS 23 (α < 0.05).
Results: The elution of TEGDMA, UDMA, and CQ in Ormocer were significantly lower than microhybrid composite resins (p value < 0.009), and the significant difference persisted over one week for both materials (p value < 0.001).
Conclusion: The Ormocer composite showed the lowest elution of TEGDMA, UDMA, and CQ components compared to the microhybrid composite resin. The elution of Ormocer composite resin in water was lower than that in methanol; also, the elution of CQ of Ormocer composite resin in methanol was higher than other components. 
Key words: Camphorquinone, Composite resin, Elution, Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, Urethane dimethacrylate

1. Geurtsen W. Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2000; 11(3): 333-55.
2. Schmaltz G. the biocompatibility of non-amalgam dental filing materials. Eur J Oral Sci 1998; 106(2 Pt 2): 696-706.
3. Ferracane JL. Elution of leachable components from composites. J Oral Rehabil 1994; 21(4): 441-52.
4. Shajii L, Santerre JP. Effect of filer content on the profile of released biodegradation products in micro-filled bis-gma/TEGDMA dental composite resins. Biomaterials 1999; 20(20): 1897-908.
5. Sakaguchi RL, Ferracane JL, Powers JM. Craig’s Restorative dental material. 14thed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2019.
6. Geursten W, Lehmann F, Spahl W, Leyhausen G. Cytotoxicity of 35 dental resin composite monomers/ addittives in permanent 3 T3 and threehuman primary fibroblast cultures. J Biomed Mater Res 1988; 41(3): 474-80.
7. Drcker AM, Pratt MD. Acrylate contact allergy: patient characteristics and evaluation of screening allergens. Dematits 2011; 22(2): 98-101.
8. Lindstrom M, Alanko K, Keskinen H, Kanerva L. Dentist’s occupational asthma, dermatitis from methacrylates. Allergy 2002; 57(6): 543-5.
9. Reichl FX, Simon S, Esters M, Seiss M, Kehe K, Kleinsasser N, et al. cytotoxicity of dental composite (co)monomers and the amalgam component Hg 2+ in human gingival. Arch Toxicol 2006; 80(8): 465-72.
10. Urcan E, Haertel U, Styllou M, Hickel R, Scherthan H, Reichl FX. Real-time xcelligence impedance analysis of the cytotoxicity of dental composite components on human. Dent Mater 2010; 26(1): 51-8.
11. Goldberg M. In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resin components: a review. Clin Oral Investig 2008; 12(1): 1-8.
12. Krifka S, Seidenader C, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Schweikl H. Oxidative stress and Cytoxicity generated by dental composites in human pulp cells. Clin Oral Investig 2012; 16(1): 215-24.
13. Schuster L, Rothmund L, He X, van Landuyt KL, Schweikl H, Hellwig E, et al. effect of opalescence bleaching gels on the elution of dental composite components. Dent Mater 2015; 31(6): 745-57.
14. Pongprueksa P, de Munck J, Duca RC, Poels K, Covaci A, Hoet P, et al. Monomer elution in relation to degree of conversion for different types of composite. J Dent 2015; 43(12): 1448-55.
15. Rothmund L, Rechl FX, Hickel R, Styllou P, Styllou M, Kehe K, et al. Effect of layer. Thickness on the elution of bulk -fill composite components. Dent Mater 2017; 33(1): 54-62.
16. Manojlovic D, Radisic M, Vasiljevic T, Zivkovic S, Lausevic M, Miletic V. Monomer Elution from nanhybrid and ormocer- based composites cured with different light sources. Dent Mater 2011; 27(4): 371-8.
17. Sivakumar A, Valiathan A. Dental ceramics and ormocer technology-navigating the future. Trends Biomaterials and Artificial Organ 2006; 20(1): 40-3.
18. Meng J, Yang H, Cao M, Li L, Cai Q. Correlating cytotoxicity to elution behaviors of composite resins in term of curing kinetic. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2017; 78: 413-9.
19. Sevkusic M, Schuster L, Rothmund L, Dettinger K, Maier M, Hickel R, et al. The elution and breakdown behavior of constituents from various light-cured composites. Dent Mater 2014; 30(6): 619-31.
20. Ilien N, Kunzelmann KH, Hickel R. Werkstoffkundliche Untersuchungen zu Kompositen. Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrif 2005; 60(6): 321-34.
21. Polydorou O, König A, Hellwig E, Kümmerer K. Long-term release of monomers from modern dental-composite materials. Eur J Oral Sci 2009; 117(1): 68-75.
Journal of Isfahan Dental School
Volume 16, Issue 3 - Serial Number 3
September 2020
Pages 300-307