Biological aspects of modern dental composites

References

• Bowen RL. Properties of a silica-reinforced polymer for dental restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1963;66:57–64. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1963.0010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayne SC. Beginnings of the dental composite revolution. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(8):880–884. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials. 2007;28(26):3757–3785. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R. Allergic contact dermatitis from dental composite resins due to aromatic epoxy acrylates and aliphatic acrylates. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;20(3):201–211. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1989.tb04657.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aalto-Korte K, Alanko K, Kuuliala O, et al. Methacrylate and acrylate allergy in dental personnel. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;57(5):324–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01237.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raposo I, Lobo I, Amaro C, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by (meth)acrylates in nail cosmetic products in users and nail technicians - a 5-year study. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;77(6):356–359. doi: 10.1111/cod.12817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan WP. Jr., Cross-sensitization patterns in acrylate allergies. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1(1):13–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1975.tb05304.x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kanerva L. Cross-reactions of multifunctional methacrylates and acrylates. Acta Odontol Scand. 2001;59(5):320–329. doi: 10.1080/000163501750541200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goncalves TS, Morganti MA, Campos LC, et al. Allergy to auto-polymerized acrylic resin in an orthodontic patient. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(3):431–435. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh RD, Gautam R, Siddhartha R, et al. High performance liquid chromatographic determination of residual monomer released from heat-cured acrylic resin. An in vivo study. J Prosthodont. 2013;22(5):358–361. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12004.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baker S, Brooks SC, Walker DM. The release of residual monomeric methyl methacrylate from acrylic appliances in the human mouth: an assay for monomer in saliva. J Dent Res. 1988;67(10):1295–1299. doi: 10.1177/00220345880670101001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michelsen VB, Kopperud HB, Lygre GB, et al. Detection and quantification of monomers in unstimulated whole saliva after treatment with resin-based composite fillings in vivo. Eur J Oral Sci. 2012;120(1):89–95. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2011.00897.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopperud HM, Kleven IS, Wellendorf H. Identification and quantification of leachable substances from polymer-based orthodontic base-plate materials. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(1):26–31. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuna EB, Aktoren O, Oshida Y, et al. Elution of residual monomers from dental composite materials. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2010;11(3):110–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putzeys E, Nys S, Cokic SM, et al. Long-term elution of monomers from resin-based dental composites. Dent Mater. 2019;35(3):477–485. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO, ISO 10993-5 Biological evaluation of medical devices, part 5: tests for in vitro cytotoxicity., International Standard Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Juranova J. Illuminating the cellular and molecular mechanism of the potential toxicity of methacrylate monomers used in biomaterials. Drug Chem Toxicol. 2020;43(3):266–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morisbak E, Uvslokk S, Samuelsen JT. In vitro effects of dental monomer exposure - Dependence on the cell culture model. Toxicol In Vitro. 2020;67:104906. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2020.104906.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelsen JT, Holme JA, Becher R, et al. HEMA reduces cell proliferation and induces apoptosis in vitro. Dent Mater. 2008;24(1):134–140. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.08.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morisbak E, Ansteinsson V, Samuelsen JT. Cell toxicity of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): the role of oxidative stress. Eur J Oral Sci. 2015;123(4):282–287. doi: 10.1111/eos.12189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelsen JT, Dahl JE, Karlsson S, et al. Apoptosis induced by the monomers HEMA and TEGDMA involves formation of ROS and differential activation of the MAP-kinases p38, JNK and ERK. Dent Mater. 2007;23(1):34–39. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spagnuolo G, D'Anto V, Valletta R, et al. Effect of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate on human pulp cell survival pathways ERK and AKT. J Endod. 2008;34(6):684–688. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krifka S, Spagnuolo G, Schmalz G, et al. A review of adaptive mechanisms in cell responses towards oxidative stress caused by dental resin monomers. Biomaterials. 2013;34(19):4555–4563. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.03.019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klaassen CD. Casarett & Doull’s toxicology: the basic science of poisons., 7th ed., McGraw-Hill Medical, New York, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Demasi M, Netto LE, Silva GM, et al. Redox regulation of the proteasome via S-glutathionylation. Redox Biol. 2014;2:44–51. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2013.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelmann J, Leyhausen G, Leibfritz D, et al. Effect of TEGDMA on the intracellular glutathione concentration of human gingival fibroblasts. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;63(6):746–751. doi: 10.1002/jbm.10465.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelsen JT, Kopperud HM, Holme JA, et al. Role of thiol-complex formation in 2-hydroxyethyl- methacrylate-induced toxicity in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2011;96(2):395–401. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.32993.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ansteinsson V, Kopperud HB, Morisbak E, et al. Cell toxicity of methacrylate monomers-the role of glutathione adduct formation. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013;101(12):3504–3510. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.34652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spagnuolo G, D'Anto V, Cosentino C, et al. Effect of N-acetyl-L-cysteine on ROS production and cell death caused by HEMA in human primary gingival fibroblasts. Biomaterials. 2006;27(9):1803–1809. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.10.022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paranjpe A, Cacalano NA, Hume WR, et al. N-acetyl cysteine mediates protection from 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate induced apoptosis via nuclear factor kappa B-dependent and independent pathways: potential involvement of JNK. Toxicol Sci. 2009;108(2):356–366. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfp010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becher R, Valen H, Olderbo BP, et al. The dental monomer 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) causes transcriptionally regulated adaptation partially initiated by electrophilic stress. Dent Mater. 2019;35(1):125–134. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alizadehgharib S, Ostberg AK, Dahlgren U. Effects of the methacrylate/acrylate monomers HEMA, TEGDMA, DEGDA, and EMA on the immune system. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2017;3(6):227–234. doi: 10.1002/cre2.93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bolling AK, Samuelsen JT, Morisbak E, et al. Dental monomers inhibit LPS-induced cytokine release from the macrophage cell line RAW264.7. Toxicol Lett. 2013;216(2-3):130–138. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.11.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krifka S, Petzel C, Hiller KA, et al. Resin monomer-induced differential activation of MAP kinases and apoptosis in mouse macrophages and human pulp cells. Biomaterials. 2010;31(11):2964–2975. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweikl H, Altmannberger I, Hanser N, et al. The effect of triethylene glycol dimethacrylate on the cell cycle of mammalian cells. Biomaterials. 2005;26(19):4111–4118. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.10.026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckhardt A, Muller P, Hiller KA, et al. Influence of TEGDMA on the mammalian cell cycle in comparison with chemotherapeutic agents. Dent Mater. 2010;26(3):232–241. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.10.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urcan E, Scherthan H, Styllou M, et al. Induction of DNA double-strand breaks in primary gingival fibroblasts by exposure to dental resin composites. Biomaterials. 2010;31(8):2010–2014. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.11.065.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweikl H, Schmalz G, Rackebrandt K. The mutagenic activity of unpolymerized resin monomers in Salmonella typhimurium and V79 cells. Mutat Res. 1998;415(1–2):119–130. doi: 10.1016/s1383-5718(98)00067-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweikl H, Schmalz G, Spruss T. The induction of micronuclei in vitro by unpolymerized resin monomers. J Dent Res. 2001;80(7):1615–1620. doi: 10.1177/00220345010800070401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansteinsson V, Solhaug A, Samuelsen JT, et al. DNA-damage, cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis induced in BEAS-2B cells by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA). Mutat Res. 2011;723(2):158–164. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2011.04.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krifka S, Petzel C, Bolay C, et al. Activation of stress-regulated transcription factors by triethylene glycol dimethacrylate monomer. Biomaterials. 2011;32(7):1787–1795. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.11.031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckhardt A, Gerstmayr N, Hiller KA, et al. TEGDMA-induced oxidative DNA damage and activation of ATM and MAP kinases. Biomaterials. 2009;30(11):2006–2014. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.12.045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishikawa A, Jinno S, Suzuki T, et al. Global gene expression analyses of mouse fibroblast L929 cells exposed to IC50 MMA by DNA microarray and confirmation of four detoxification genes’ expression by real-time PCR. Dent Mater J. 2006;25(2):205–213. doi: 10.4012/dmj.25.205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweikl H, Hiller KA, Eckhardt A, et al. Differential gene expression involved in oxidative stress response caused by triethylene glycol dimethacrylate. Biomaterials. 2008;29(10):1377–1387. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.11.049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho SG, Lee JW, Heo JS, et al. Gene expression change in human dental pulp cells exposed to a low-level toxic concentration of triethylene glycol dimethacrylate: an RNA-seq analysis. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2014;115(3):282–290. doi: 10.1111/bcpt.12197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsen BW, Simon-Santamaria J, Ortengren U, et al. Dose- and time-dependent effects of triethylene glycol dimethacrylate on the proteome of human THP-1 monocytes. Eur J Oral Sci. 2018;126(5):345–358. doi: 10.1111/eos.12559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelsen JT, Michelsen VB, Bruun JA, et al. The dental monomer HEMA causes proteome changes in human THP-1 monocytes. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2019;107(4):851–859. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.36601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilija Pun N, Park PH. Role of p62 in the suppression of inflammatory cytokine production by adiponectin in macrophages: involvement of autophagy and p21/Nrf2 axis. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):393. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00456-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Liu F, Rehmani I, Esaki S, et al. Pirin is an iron-dependent redox regulator of NF-kappaB. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(24):9722–9727. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221743110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaung W, Mi LJ, Boorstein RJ. The p53 status of Chinese hamster V79 cells frequently used for studies on DNA damage and DNA repair. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997;25(5):992–994. doi: 10.1093/nar/25.5.992.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugimoto K, Toyoshima H, Sakai R, et al. Frequent mutations in the p53 gene in human myeloid leukemia cell lines. Blood. 1992;79(9):2378–2383. doi: 10.1182/blood.V79.9.2378.bloodjournal7992378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh A, Misra V, Thimmulappa RK, et al. Dysfunctional KEAP1-NRF2 interaction in non-small-cell lung cancer. PLoS Med. 2006;3(10):e420. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO, ISO 10993-1 Biological evaluation of medical devices -, part 1: evaluation and testing within a risk management process. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Chen AY, Zirwas MJ. Denture stomatitis. Skinmed. 2007;6(2):92–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-9740.2007.05867.x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ISO, ISO 10993-10 Biological evaluation of medical devices -, part 10: tests for skin sensitization. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• ISO, ISO 10993-23 Biological evaluation of medical devices -, part 23: tests for irritation. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standard Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Frankild S, Volund A, Wahlberg JE, et al. 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(4):256–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD, Test No. 429: skin Sensitisation, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, et al. Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2010;29(3):730–741. doi: 10.1002/etc.34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbisch D, Honarvar N, Kolle SN, et al. Peptide reactivity associated with skin sensitization: the QSAR toolbox and TIMES compared to the DPRA. Toxicol In Vitro. 2016;34:194–203. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2016.04.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim H, Choi J, Lee H, et al. Skin corrosion and irritation test of nanoparticles using reconstructed three-dimensional human skin model, EpiDerm(TM. Toxicol Res. 2016;32(4):311–316. doi: 10.5487/TR.2016.32.4.311.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spielmann H, Kalweit S, Liebsch M, et al. Validation study of alternatives to the draize eye irritation test in Germany: cytotoxicity testing and HET-CAM test with 136 industrial chemicals. Toxicol In Vitro. 1993;7(4):505–510. doi: 10.1016/0887-2333(93)90055-a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivero MN, Lenze M, Izaguirre M, et al. Comparison between HET-CAM protocols and a product use clinical study for eye irritation evaluation of personal care products including cosmetics according to their surfactant composition. Food Chem Toxicol. 2021;153:112229. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2021.112229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl JE. Irritation of dental adhesive agents evaluated by the HET-CAM test. Toxicol In Vitro. 1999;13(2):259–264. doi: 10.1016/s0887-2333(98)00086-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonnroth EC, Dahl JE, Shahnavaz H. Evaluating the potential occupational hazard of handling dental polymer products using the HET-CAM technique. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 1999;5(1):43–57. doi: 10.1080/10803548.1999.11076410.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dahl JE. Potential of dental adhesives to induce mucosal irritation evaluated by the HET-CAM method. Acta Odontol Scand. 2007;65(5):275–283. doi: 10.1080/00016350701589286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natsch A, Emter R. Skin sensitizers induce antioxidant response element dependent genes: application to the in vitro testing of the sensitization potential of chemicals. Toxicol Sci. 2008;102(1):110–119. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfm259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerberick GF, Vassallo JD, Bailey RE, et al. Development of a peptide reactivity assay for screening contact allergens. Toxicol Sci. 2004;81(2):332–343. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfh213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natsch A. The Nrf2-Keap1-ARE toxicity pathway as a cellular sensor for skin sensitizers–functional relevance and a hypothesis on innate reactions to skin sensitizers. Toxicol Sci. 2010;113(2):284–292. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfp228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD, Test No. 442C: in Chemico Skin Sensitisation, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• OECD, Test No. 442D: in Vitro Skin Sensitisation, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Russell WMS, Burch RL. The principles of humane experimental technique. Special edition ed. South Mimms: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, 1992.
   Google Scholar
• Natsch A, Emter R, Ellis G. Filling the concept with data: integrating data from different in vitro and in silico assays on skin sensitizers to explore the battery approach for animal-free skin sensitization testing. Toxicol Sci. 2009;107(1):106–121. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfn204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Veen JW, Rorije E, Emter R, et al. Evaluating the performance of integrated approaches for hazard identification of skin sensitizing chemicals. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014;69(3):371–379. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.04.018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henriks-Eckerman ML, Suuronen K, Jolanki R, et al. Methacrylates in dental restorative materials. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50(4):233–237. doi: 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2004.00336.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar