SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Selcuk Dental Journal / 2017 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3

Biocompatibility and assessment methods in dentistry

ÖZ Diş hekimliğinde biyouyumluluk ve değerlendirme yöntemleri

ZEHRA SÜSGÜN YILDIRIM
ELİF PINAR BAKIR
Şehmus BAKIR
Mehmet Salih AYDIN
Pages
162–169
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

While deciding to use a new material, dentist should examine different research results and make a riskbenefit analysis as well as patient's request.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Biocompatibility of dental materials has been described as to be minumum harmful effects on oral tissues.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The degree of this effect changes based on patient, material, function, strength, placement conditions and time.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:While deciding to use a new material, dentist should examine different research results and make a riskbenefit analysis as well as patient's request.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Biocompatibility of dental materials has been described as to be minumum harmful effects on oral tissues. The degree of this effect changes based on patient, material, function, strength, placement conditions and time. It is important to evaluate the reliability of the materials to be used. For the evaluation of dental materials’ biocompatibility; a classic paradigm in the form of in vitro tests → animal experiments → clinical usage tests is often used. While deciding to use a new material, dentist should examine different research results and make a riskbenefit analysis as well as patient's request.

Özet

Dental materyallerin biyouyumluluğu; oral dokular üzerine zararlı etkilerinin en az seviyede olması şeklinde tarif edilmektedir. Bu etkinin derecesi; hastaya, materyalin fonksiyonuna, gücüne, yerleştirildiği koşullara ve zamana bağlı olarak değişir. Kullanıma sunulacak materyallerin güvenilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi önemlidir. Dental materyallerin biyouyumluluğunu değerlendirmede genellikle; in vitro testler -> hayvan deneyleri -> klinik kullanım testleri şeklinde, sıralı klasik bir paradigma kullanılmaktadır. Diş hekimi yeni bir materyali kullanmaya karar verirken, farklı araştırma sonuçlarını incelemeli ve hastanın taleplerinin yanı sıra, risk-yarar analizi de yapmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRIM, Z. S., BAKIR, E. P., BAKIR, Ş., AYDIN, M. S. (2017). Biocompatibility and assessment methods in dentistry. Selcuk Dental Journal, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 3, 162–169. https://ajindex.com/articles/301740

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practioners. J Prosth Dent 2001; 86: 203-9
  2. Uzun İH, Bayındır F. [Testing procedures for biocompatibility of dental materials]. Gazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2011; 28: 115-22
  3. Mallineni SK, Nuvvula S, Matinlinna JP, Yiu CK, King NM. Biocompatibility of various dental materials in contemporary dentistry: a narrative insight. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry 2013; 4: 9-19
  4. Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D. Biocompatibility of dental materials.1st ed. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; Springer: 2009
  5. Powers JM, Sakaguchi RL. Craig's restorative dental materials. 12th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2006. p.97- 125
  6. Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials 2008; 29: 2941-53
  7. Ratner BD, Bryant SJ. Biomaterials: where we have been and where we are going. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2004; 6: 41-75
  8. Anderson JM. Biological responses to materials. Annu Rev Mater Sci 2001; 31: 81-110
  9. Schmalz G. Strategies to ımprove biocompatibility of dental materials. Curr Oral Health Rep 2014;1: 222–31. 10.Ratner BD. Replacing and renewing: synthetic materials, biomimetics, and tissue engineering in implant dentistry. J Dent Educ 2001; 65: 1340–7. 11.Pagoria D, Lee A, Geurtsen W. The effect of camphorquinone (CQ) and CQ-related photosensitizers on the generation of reactive oxygen species and the production of oxidative DNA damage. Biomaterials 2005; 26: 4091-9. 12.Vamnes JS, Morken T, Helland S, Gjerdet NR. Dental gold alloys and contact hypersensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 2000; 42: 128-33. 13.Wataha JC. Biocompatibility of dental casting alloys: a review. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83: 223-34. 14.Cao T, Saw TY, Heng BC, Liu H, Yap AUJ, Ng ML. Comparison of different test models for the assesment of cytotoxicity of composite resins. Journal of Applied Toxicology 2005; 25: 101-8. 15.Saw TY, Cao T, Yap AUJ, Ng MML. Tooth slice organ culture and established cell line culture models for cytotoxicity assesment of dental materials. Toxicol In Vitro 2005; 19: 145-54. 16.Annunziata M, Aversa R, Apicella A, Annunziata A, Apicella D, Buonaiuto C, et al. In vitro biological response to a light-cured composite when used for cementation of composite inlays. Dent Materials 2006; 22: 1081-5. 17.Sengün A, Buyukbas S, Hakki SS. Cytotoxic effects of dental desensitizers on human gingival fibroblasts. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2006; 78: 131-7
  10. Moharamzadeh K, Brook IM,