In vitro cytotoxicity of all-ceramic substructural materials after aging
In vitro cytotoxicity of all-ceramic substructural materials after aging
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jds.2012.09.004
复制
发表时间：
2013-09-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Kesim, Servet
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kilic, Kerem;Kesim, Bulent;Kesim, Servet
背景/目的：已经开发了几种全瓷材料，以满足修复牙科中最具挑战性的要求。然而，只有有限的报告集中在全陶瓷的生物相容性问题。本研究的目的是评估不同类型的全瓷次结构材料的效果，以确定其在实验条件下的生物学性能。材料和方法：我们测试了六个全陶瓷系统[玻璃渗透氧化铝增强陶瓷（In-Ceram氧化铝，Turkom Cera），玻璃渗透氧化锆增韧氧化铝陶瓷（In-Ceram Zirconia）、低熔陶瓷（Finesse）、氧化钇稳定的四氧化锆陶瓷（Zirkonzahn）和二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷（IPS e.max）]，以确定它们改变细胞线粒体脱氢酶活性的能力。结果：3-（4，5-二甲基噻唑-2-基）-2，5-二苯基溴化四氮唑试验结果显示，Finesse和Zirkonzahn与阴性对照组相比，毒性作用无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。相比之下，与阴性对照组相比，In-Ceram氧化铝、In-Ceram氧化锆、Turkom Cera和IPS e.max表现出统计学显著的毒性作用（P < 0.05）。当评价老化对细胞毒性特性的影响时，In-Ceram氧化锆和Turkom Cera在老化过程后第1天显示出细胞毒性效应增加，而IPS e.max和Zirkonzahn分别在第2天和第7天显示出细胞毒性效应。的细胞毒性作用; Zirkonzahn和IPS e.max分别在第1天和第2周降低。结论：不同类型的全瓷亚结构在体外并不引起相同的结果。应答Finesse和Zirkonzahn没有高生物风险。然而，我们的结果表明，In-Ceram氧化铝、In-Ceram氧化锆、Turkom Cera和IPS e.max不应被视为完全生物相容的材料。中华民国口腔医学会版权所有（C）2012由爱思唯尔台湾有限公司出版。All rights reserved.
Background/purpose: Several all-ceramic materials have been developed to meet the most challenging requirements in restorative dentistry. However, only limited reports have focused on the issue of biocompatibility of all-ceramics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of different types of all-ceramic substructural materials to determine their biological performance under experimental conditions.Materials and methods: We tested six all-ceramic systems [glass-infiltrated alumina-reinforced ceramic (In-Ceram Alumina, Turkom Cera), glass-infiltrated zirconia-toughened alumina ceramic (In-Ceram Zirconia), low-fusing ceramic (Finesse), yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia ceramic (Zirkonzahn), and lithium disilicate glass ceramic (IPS e.max)] using a tetrazolium assay prior to and 3 days after aging, to determine their ability to alter cellular mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity. Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon t test were used for statistical analysis (alpha = 0.05).Results: According to the results of the 3-(4,5-dimethyl-thiazol-2yl-)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide tests, the toxic effects of Finesse and Zirkonzahn were statistically insignificant (P > 0.05) compared with the negative control group. In contrast, In-Ceram Alumina, In-Ceram Zirconia, Turkom Cera, and IPS e.max demonstrated statistically significant toxic effects (P < 0.05) compared to the negative control group. When effects of aging on cytotoxic properties were evaluated, In-Ceram Zirconia and Turkom Cera showed increased cytotoxic effects on the 1st day following the aging process, whereas IPS e.max and Zirkonzahn displayed cytotoxic effects on the 2nd day and Day 7, respectively. The cytotoxic effect of;Zirkonzahn and IPS e.max was decreased on the 1st day and at the 2nd week, respectively.Conclusion: Several types of all-ceramic substructures did not cause the same in vitro. responses. Finesse and Zirkonzahn did not carry high biologic risk. However, our results suggest that In-Ceram Alumina, In-Ceram Zirconia, Turkom Cera, and IPS e.max should not be considered as entirely biocompatible materials. Copyright (C) 2012, Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.