DİŞHEKİMLİĞİNDE BİYOUYUMLULUK VE DEĞERLENDİRME YÖNTEMLERİ

Year 2017, Volume: 4 Issue: 3, 162 - 169, 01.12.2017

Zehra Süsgün Yıldırım , Elif Pınar Bakır , Şeyhmus Bakır , Mehmet Salih Aydın

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.302915

Abstract

Dental materyallerin
biyouyumluluğu; oral dokular üzerine zararlı etkilerinin minimum olması
şeklinde tarif edilmektedir. Bu etkinin
derecesi; hastaya, materyalin fonksiyonuna, gücüne, yerleştirildiği koşullara
ve zamana bağlı olarak değişir. Kullanıma sunulacak materyallerin güvenilirliğinin
hangi testlerle değerlendirildiği önem taşımaktadır. 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 yapmalıdır.

Keywords

Dental materyal; Biyouyumluluk; In-vitro testler.

References

• 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.
• Ratner BD. Replacing and renewing: synthetic materials, biomimetics, and tissue engineering in implant dentistry. J Dent Educ 2001;65:1340–7.
• 1. 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.
• 2. Vamnes JS, Morken T, Helland S, Gjerdet NR. Dental gold alloys and contact hypersensitivity. Contact Dermatitis 2000;42:128-33.
• 3. Wataha JC. Biocompatibility of dental casting alloys: a review. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:223-34.
• 4. 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.
• 5. 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.
• 6. 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.
• 7. 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.
• 8. Moharamzadeh K, Brook IM, Noort RV. Biocompatibility of resin-based dental materials. Materials 2009;2:514-48.
• 9. Wataha JC, Lockwood PE, Schedle A, Noda M, Bouillaguet S. Ag, Cu, Hg, and Ni ions alter the metabolism of human monocytes during extended low-dose exposures. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:133-9.
• 10. Maxwell P, Salnikow K. HIF: an oxygen and metal responsive transcription factor. Cancer Biol Ther 2004;3:29-35.
• 1. Wataha JC, Lewis JB, Volkmann KR, Lockwood PE, Messer RLW, Bouillaguet S. Sublethal concentrations of Au(III), Pd(II), and Ni(II) differentially alter inflammatory cytokine secretion from activated monocytes. J BIomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2004;69:11-7.
• 2. Freshney Ian R. Culture of Animal Cells: A Manual of Basic Technique, Fifth Edition,. Haboken; John Wiley & Sons: 2005. p.1-216.
• 3. Murray PE, García Godoy C, García Godoy F. How is the biocompatibilty of dental biomaterials evaluated? Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2007;12:258-66.
• 4. Nicholson JW. The chemistry of medical and dental materials. Cambridge; The Royal Society of Chemistry: 2002. p.186-195.
• 5. Schweikl H, Hiller KA, Bolay C, Kreissl M, Kreismann W, Nusser A, et al. Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of dental composite materials. Biomaterials 2005;26:1713-9.
• 6. Murray PE, Lumley PJ, Ross HF, Smith AJ. Tooth slice organ culture for cytotoxicity assesment of dental materials. Biomaterials 2000;21:1711-21.
• 7. Tuncer S, Demirci M. [The evaluation of dental materials biocompatibility]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2011;21(2):141-149.
• 8. Erdemir EO, Şengün A, Ülker M. Cytotoxicity of mouthrinses on epiteheliel cells by micronucleus test. European Journal of Dentistry 2007;1(2):80-5.
• 9. Ergün G, Sağsen LM, Doğan A, Özkul A, Demirel E. [Examination of cytotoxicity of denture base resins, by agar diffusion and filter diffusion test methods]. Gazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2006;23:31-7.
• 10. Ulu KG, Kırzıoğlu Z. [Dentin permeability and effecting factors af dentin permeability: a review]. 2012;6:60-5.
• 1. Ülker HE, Ülker M, Özcan E. [Cytotoxicity evaluation of a new self-adhering flowable composite by dentin barrier test]. Acta Odontologica Turcica 2013;30(3):140-4.
• 2. About I, Camps J, Burger AS, Mitsiadis TA, Butler W, Franquin JC. Polymerized bonding agents and the differantiation in vitro of human pulp cells into odontoblast-like cells. Dent Mater 2005;21:156-63.
• 3. Schuster U, Schmalz G, Thonemann B, Mendel N, Metzi C. Cytotoxicity testing with three dimensional cultures of transfected pulp-derived cells. J Endod 2001;27:259-65.
• 4. Çiçek C, Bilgiç A. [Cell culture training programme for specialist residents in virology laboratory: A model]. İnfeksiyon Dergisi, 2006;20(3):231-41.
• 5. Schmalz G, Hiller K, Nunez L, Stoll J, Weis K. Permeability characteristics of bovine and human dentin under different pretreatment conditions. J Endod 2001;27:23-30.
• 6. Schmalz G, Schuster U, Thonemann B, Barth M, Esterbauer S. Dentin barrier test with transfected bovine pulp-derived cells. J Endod 2001;27:96-102.
• 7. Thom DC, Davies JE, Santerre JP, Friedman S. The hemolytic and cytotoxic properties of a zeolite-containing root filling material in vitro. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics. 2003;95:101-8.
• 8. Pişkin B, Avsever H, Gündüz K. [Evaluation techniques of biocompatibiliy of materials in dentistry]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2009;10(2):41-9.
• 9. Bloching M, Reich W, Schubert J, Grummt T, Sandner A. The influence of oral hygiene on salivary quality in the Ames Test, as a marker for genotoxic effects. Oral Oncol 2007;43:933-9.
• 10. Schweikl H, Schmalz G, Spruss T. The induction of micronuclei in vitro by unpolymerized resin monomers. J Dent Res 2001;80:1615-20.
• 1. Schweikl H, Schmalz G, Weinmann W. Mutagenic acitivity of structurally related oxiranes and siloranes in Salmonella typhimurium. Mutat Res 2002;521:19-27.
• 2. Keiser K, Johnson C, Tipton DA. Cytotoxicity of mineral trioxide aggregate using human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. J Endod 2000;26:288-91.
• 3. Dufrane D, Cornu O, Verraes T, Schecroun N, Banse X, Schneider YJ, et al. In vitro evaluation of acute cytotoxicity of human chemically treated allografts. European Cells and Materials 2001;1:52-8.
• 4. Babich H, Reisbaum AG, Zuckerbraun HL. In vitro response of human gingival epithelial S-G cells to resveratrol. Toxicol Letter 2000;114:143–53.
• 5. Zorba YO, Yıldız M. [The Biocompatibility Tests and Criteria for Adhesive Restorative Materials]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2007;2:15-21.
• 6. Geurtsen W. Biocompatiblity of resin-modified filling materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2000;11:333-55.
• 7. Frankild, S, Volund A, Wahlberg JE, Andersen KE. Comparison of the sensitivities of the Buehler test and the guinea pig maximization test for predictive testing of contact allergy. Acta Derm Venereol 2000;80:256-62.
• 8. About I, Murray PE, Franquin JC, Remusat M, Smith AJ. Pulpal inflammatory responses following non-carious class V restorations. Oper Dent 2001;26:336-42.
• 9. Tan iC, Finger WJ. Effect of smear layer thickness on bond strenght mediated by three All-in-one selfetching priming adhesives. J Adhes Dent 2002;4:283-9.
• 10. Murray PE, Windsor LJ, Symth TW, Hafez AA, Cox CF. Analysis of pulpal reactions to restorative procedures, materials, pulp capping, and future therapies. Crit Rev Oral Bio Med 2002;13:509-20.
• 1. Hauman CHJ, Love RM. Biocompatibility of dental materials used in contemporary endodontic therapy: a review, part 1. Intracanal drugs and substances. Int Endodon J. 2003;36:75-85.
• 2. Costa CS, Hebling J, Randall RC. Human pulp response to resin cements used to bond inlay restorations. Dent Mat 2006;22:954-62.
• 3. Mjör IA. Minimum requirement for new dental materials. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:907-12.
• 4. Bayne SC. Dental restoration for oral rehabilitation-testing of laboratory properties versus clinical performance for clinical decision making. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:921-32.