Abstract:

The word “biocompatibility” has been gaining popularity, primarily in the field of dentistry but also in other fields of medicine. In essence, it means that biocompatible materials shouldn’t harm the recipient. The materials used in typical dental operations currently consist of literally hundreds of different components, and more are being developed every year. The relevance of using the patient’s most biocompatible material is increasingly being reported in scientific literature. According to research, choosing the least reactive material is crucial, but so is considering how that material might interact with any other implants that may already be in the mouth cavity. The application of these techniques may also result in a deeper comprehension of the biological reactions’ underlying mechanisms (mechanistic approach) when describing the biocompatibility of dental restorative materials. This review article aims to summarize the biocompatibility of restorative materials in general and the effects on immunological reaction caused by them.

References:

[1] Delves, P.J.; Martin, S.J.; Burton, D.R.; Roitt, I.M. Roitt’s Essential Immunology; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.

[2] Mariani E, Lisignoli G, Borzì RM, Pulsatelli L. Biomaterials: Foreign Bodies or Tuners for the Immune Response? Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Feb 1;20(3):636. Doi: 10.3390/ijms20030636. PMID: 30717232; PMCID: PMC6386828.

[3] Zabrovsky, A. & Beyth, N., Pietrokovski, Yoav & Ben-Gal, Gilad & Houri-Haddad, Y. (2016). Biocompatibility and Functionality of Dental Restorative Materials: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100884-3.00005-9.

[4] G. Schmalz. Concepts in biocompatibility testing of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest (1997) 1: 154–162.

[5] A Hensten-Pettersen, N Jacobsen. Biocompatibility of restorative materials. Operative dentistry supplement 2001, 6: 229-235.

[6] Andersen KE, Benezra C, Burrows D, Camarasa J, Doom-Gooseme A, Ducombs G, Frosch P, Lachapelle JM, Lahti A, Menné T, Rycroft R, Scheper P, White I & Wilkinson J (1987) Contact dermatitis: A review Contact Dermatitie 16(2) 55-78.

[7] McGivern B, Pemberton M, Theaker ED, Buchanan JAG & Thornhill MH (2000) Delayed and immediate hypersensitivity reactions associated with the use of amalgam British Dental Journal 188(2) 73-76.

[8] Hensten-Pettersen A (1992) Casting alloys; side effects Advances in Dental Research 6 38-43.

[9] Hensten-Pettersen A (1998) Skin and mucosal reactions associated with dental materials European Journal of Oral Science 106(2 pt 2) 707-712.

[10] Hensten-Pettersen A & Jacobsen N (1990) The role of biomaterials as occupational hazards in dentistry. International Dental Journal 40(3) 159-166.

[11] Hensten-Pettersen A & Jacobsen N (1991) Perceived side effects of biomaterials in prosthetic dentistry Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 65(1) 138-144.

[12] Stenman E & Bergman M (1989) Hypersensitivity reactions to dental materials in a referred group of patients. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research 97(1) 76-83.

[13] Kanerva L, Alanko K, Estlander R, Jolanki R, Lahtinen A & Savela A (2000) Statistics on occupational contact dermatitis from (meth) methacrylates in dental personnel Contact Dermatitis 42(3) 175-176.

[14] Bratel J, Hakeberg M & Jontell M (1996) Effecte of replacement of dental amalgam on oral lichenoid reactions. Journal of Dentistry 24(1-2) 41-45.

[15] Vanes JS, Morken T, Helland S & Gjerdet NR (2000) Dental gold alloys and contact hypersensitivity Contact Dermatitis 42(3) 128-133.

[16] Tsuruta K, Matsunaga K, Suzuki K, Suzuki R, Akita H, Washimi Y, Tomitaka A & Ueda H (2001) Female pre- dominance of gold allergy Contact Dermatitis 44(1) 55-56.

[17] Jacobsen N, Aasenden R & Hensten-Pettersen A (1991) Occupational health complaints and adverse patient reactions as perceived by personnel in public dentistry Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 19(3) 155-159.

[18] Fisher A (1982) Contact dermatitis in medical and surgical personnel in Occupational and Industrial Dermatology (des Maibach HI & Gellin GA) Yearbook Medical Publishers, Inc pp 219-228.

[19] Seppälainen AM & Rajaniemi R (1984) Local neurotoxicity of methylmethacrylate among dental technicians American Journal of Industrial Medicine 5(6) 471-477.

[20] Mandel, I.D., 1987. The functions of saliva. J. Dent. Res. 66 Spec No: 623-7.

[21] Hatton, M.N., Loomis, R.E., Levine, M.J., Tabak, L.A., 1985. Masticatory lubrication. The role of carbohydrate in the lubricating property of a salivary glycoprotein-albumin complex. Biochem. J. 230, 817–820.

[22] Aguirre, A., Mendoza, B., Levine, M.J., Hatton, M.N., Douglas, W.H., 1989. In vitro characterization of human salivary lubrication. Arch. Oral Biol. 34, 675–677.

[23] Wahl, M.J., Swift Jr., E.J., 2013. Critical appraisal: dental amalgam update—part II: biological effects. J. Esthet. Restorative Dent. 25, 433–437.

[24] Van Landuyt, K.L., Nawrot, T., Geebelen, B., De Munck, J., Snauwaert, J., Yoshihara, K., et al., 2011. How much do resin-based dental materials release? A meta-analytical approach. Dent. Mater. 27, 723–747.

[25] Sideridou, I., Tserki, V., Papanastasiou, G., 2002. Effect of chemical structure on degree of conversion in light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomaterials 23, 1819–1829.

[26] Kildal, K.K., Ruyter, I.E., 1994. How different curing methods affect the degree of conversion of resin-based inlay/onlay materials. Acta Odontol. Scand. 52, 315–322.

[27] Feng, L., Carvalho, R., Suh, B.I., 2009. Insufficient cure under the condition of high irradiance and short irradiation time. Dent. Mater. 25, 283–289.

[28] Anderson, J.M.; Rodriguez, A.; Chang, D.T. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin. Immunol. 2008, 20, 86–100.