SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2010 / Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 6

Comparison of in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of MMA-based polymeric materials and various metallic materials

Nesrin HASIRCI
Bilge Hakan ŞEN
Tuba ENDOĞAN
Gülçe Sultan İZ
Delioğlu Saime İsmet GÜRHAN
Pages
905–916
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

The addition of HA reduced the cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of MMA monomer and leachable ingredients.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:To determine the in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of some polymeric and metallic implant materials used as base materials in dentistry, based on ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) test protocols.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and methods: Three different acrylate-based polymeric materials were tested for their in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity (polymethylmethacrylate microspheres [PMMA], a solid cement prepared by mixing PMMA with its monomer methylmethacrylate [PMMA+MMA], a solid cement prepared by mixing PMMA, MMA, and hydroxyapatite [PMMA+MMA+HA], as wells as 4 different metallic materials (titanium [Ti grade 4], nickel alloy 625 [Ni-625], stainless steel alloy 304L [SS-304L], and stainless steel alloy 321 [SS-321]).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The addition of HA reduced the cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of MMA monomer and leachable ingredients.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Key words: Biocompatibility · in vitro cytotoxicity · in vitro genotoxicity

Abstract

To determine the in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of some polymeric and metallic implant materials used as base materials in dentistry, based on ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) test protocols. Materials and methods: Three different acrylate-based polymeric materials were tested for their in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity (polymethylmethacrylate microspheres [PMMA], a solid cement prepared by mixing PMMA with its monomer methylmethacrylate [PMMA+MMA], a solid cement prepared by mixing PMMA, MMA, and hydroxyapatite [PMMA+MMA+HA], as wells as 4 different metallic materials (titanium [Ti grade 4], nickel alloy 625 [Ni-625], stainless steel alloy 304L [SS-304L], and stainless steel alloy 321 [SS-321]). Cytotoxic effects of the materials were determined using L929 mouse fibroblasts by MTT assay. Cell attachment properties related to the biocompatibility of the materials were analyzed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Genotoxicity of the materials was determined with human peripheral lymphocytes via micronucleus assay. Results: The highest compatibility was exhibited by Ti grade 4, followed by Ni-625, SS-304L and, SS-321. Among the polymeric materials, PMMA+MMA+HA had the highest biocompatibility, followed by PMMA+MMA and PMMA. Conclusion: The biocompatibility of the metallic materials was higher than that of the polymeric materials. Ti, the most inert metal, exhibited the highest biocompatibility. The addition of HA reduced the cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of MMA monomer and leachable ingredients.

Özet

To determine the in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of some polymeric and metallic implant materials used as base materials in dentistry, based on ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and OECD (Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development) test protocols. Materials and methods: Three different acrylate-based polymeric materials were tested for their in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity (polymethylmethacrylate microspheres [PMMA], a solid cement prepared by mixing PMMA with its monomer methylmethacrylate [PMMA+MMA], a solid cement prepared by mixing PMMA, MMA, and hydroxyapatite [PMMA+MMA+HA], as wells as 4 different metallic materials (titanium [Ti grade 4], nickel alloy 625 [Ni-625], stainless steel alloy 304L [SS-304L], and stainless steel alloy 321 [SS-321]). Cytotoxic effects of the materials were determined using L929 mouse fibroblasts by MTT assay. Cell attachment properties related to the biocompatibility of the materials were analyzed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Genotoxicity of the materials was determined with human peripheral lymphocytes via micronucleus assay. Results: The highest compatibility was exhibited by Ti grade 4, followed by Ni-625, SS-304L and, SS-321. Among the polymeric materials, PMMA+MMA+HA had the highest biocompatibility, followed by PMMA+MMA and PMMA. Conclusion: The biocompatibility of the metallic materials was higher than that of the polymeric materials. Ti, the most inert metal, exhibited the highest biocompatibility. The addition of HA reduced the cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of MMA monomer and leachable ingredients.

🔖

Cite This Article

HASIRCI, N., ŞEN, B. H., ENDOĞAN, T., İZ, G. S., GÜRHAN, D. S. İ. (2022). Comparison of in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of MMA-based polymeric materials and various metallic materials. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 6, 905–916. https://ajindex.com/articles/611470

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Schweikl H, Hiller KA, Bolay C, Kreissl M, Kreismann W, Nusser A et al. Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of dental composite materials. Biomaterials 2005; 26, 1713-19
  2. Hanawa T. Metal ion release from metal implants. Materials Science and Engineering C 2004; 24, 745-52
  3. Wataha JC, Rueggeberg FA, Lapp CA, Lewis JB, Lockwood PE, Ergle JW et al. In vitro cytotoxicity of resin-containing restorative materials after aging in artificial saliva. Clin Oral Investig 1999; 3: 144-49
  4. Yamamoto A, Kohyama Y, Kuroda D, Hanawa T. Cytocompatibility evaluation of Ni-free stainless steel manufactured by nitrogen adsorption treatment. Materials Science and Engineering C 2004; 24: 737-43
  5. Spahl W, Budzikiewicz H, Geurtsen W. Determination of leachable components from four commercial dental composites by gas and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. J Dent 1998; 26: 137-45
  6. Pelka M, Distler W, Petschelt A. Elution parameters and HPLC detection of single components from resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 1999; 3: 194-200
  7. Demirci M, Hiller KA, Bosl C, Galler K, Schmalz G, Schweikl H. The induction of oxidative stress, cytotoxicity, and genotoxicity by dental adhesives. Dental Materials 2008; 24: 362-71
  8. Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Godoy FG, Hanks CT. In vitro cytotoxicity of five glass-ionomer cements. Biomaterials 2003; 24: 3853-58
  9. BS EN ISO 10993-1:1998, Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices, Evaluation and Testing
  10. BS EN IS0 10993-3:1998, Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices, Tests for Genotoxicity, Carcinogenicity and Reproductive Toxicity
  11. IS0 10993-5:1998, Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices, Tests for in-vitro Cytotoxicity
  12. OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals Draft Proposal for a New Guideline 487, In Vitro Micronucleus Test, 2004
  13. ISO 10993-12:1998, Sample Preparation and Reference Materials 14. Jenkins N. Ed., Animal Cell Biotechnology Methods and Protocols, Cell Counting and Viability Measurements, Humana Press Inc 1999; 139
  14. Gurhan SI, Vatansever HS, Kurt FÖ, Tuglu I, Characterization of osteoblasts derived from bone marrow stromal cells in a modified cell culture system, Acta Histochemica 2006; 108: 49- 57
  15. Hanawa T, Kaga M, Itoh Y, Echizenya T, Oguchi H, Ota M. Cytotoxicities of oxides, phosphates and sulphides of metals. Biomaterials 1992; 13: 20-24
  16. Volden G, Haugen HF, Skrede S, Reversible cellular damage by dimethyl sulfoxide reflected by release of marker enzymes for intracellular f