A comparative cytotoxic evaluation of the bulk-fill composite resins cured with new-generation led unit at different thicknesses

Zehra Susgun Yıldırım; Seda Susgun; Sezen Atasoy

doi:10.5281/zenodo.8236294

Authors

Zehra Susgun Yıldırım 1Cukurova University, Faculty of Dentistry, Restorative Dentistry Department, Adana, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1717-8214
Seda Susgun Graduate School of Health Sciences, Istanbul University, Istanbul and Bezmialem Vakif University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Biology, Istanbul, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9689-3111
Sezen Atasoy Bezmialem Vakif University, Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Biochemistry, Istanbul, Turkey https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5063-5053

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8236294

Keywords:

Bulk-fill composite, Cell viability, MTT, VALO

Abstract

Objective: Nowadays, bulk-fill composites are frequently used to restore posterior teeth. Herein, we aimed to asses the cytotoxicity of two bulk-fill composites (SDR Plus and ACTIVA BioActive-Restorative) in terms of thickness and curing device by comparing them with conventional composite (G-aenial Posterior).

Materials and methods: Bulk-fill composites were prepared as 4 mm layers and cured by different generation curing units; Elipar FreeLight 2 and VALO. After polymerization, 4 mm composites were divided into two by transparent strips between the layers. Each group contained six samples as total 30 samples. The samples were incubated with the cell culture medium to obtain eluates for 1, 3, and 7 days. After incubation times, eluates were added to human healthy fibroblast cells (CCD-1079Sk) for 24 and 48 hours, and cellular viability was measured through MTT method.

Results: In all conditions, SDR has shown the least cytotoxicity, followed by GC and ACT, respectively (cell viability; SDR>GC>ACT). Additionally, cell viability was increased over time (as 1, 3, and 7 days), and was decreased as the thickness increased. While bulk-fill resins were not affected by curing device, 3rd generation LED was better for GC.

Conclusions: Cytotoxicity of bulk-fill composites could alter by preparation methods. This study shows that thickness may be increased cytotoxicity for all resins, while the light source is not very effective.

References

Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Polymerization contraction of resin composite vs. energy and power density of light-cure. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005;113(5):417-21.

Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR technology. Dent Mater. 2011;27(4):348-55.

Bouschlicher MR, Rueggeberg FA, Wilson BM. Correlation of bottom-to-top surface microhardness and conversion ratios for a variety of resin composite compositions. Oper Dent. 2004;29(6):698-704.

Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent. 2013;38(6):618-25.

Price RB, Felix CA. Effect of delivering light in specific narrow bandwidths from 394 to 515nm on the micro-hardness of resin composites. Dent Mater. 2009;25(7):899-908.

Price RB, Labrie D, Rueggeberg FA, Felix CM. Irradiance differences in the violet (405 nm) and blue (460 nm) spectral ranges among dental light-curing units. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2010;22(6):363-77.

Rueggeberg FA, Blalock JS, Callan RS. LED curing lights--what's new? Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2005;26(8):586-91.

Mousavinasab SM. Biocompatibility of composite resins. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2011;8(Suppl 1):S21-9.

Ivković N, Božović D, Ristić S, Mirjanić V, Janković O. The residual monomer in dental acrylic resin and its adverse effects. Contemporary materials. 2013;1(4):84-91.

Kamalak H, Kamalak A, Taghizadehghalehjoughi A, Hacimuftuoglu A, Nalci KA. Cytotoxic and biological effects of bulk fill composites on rat cortical neuron cells. Odontology. 2018;106(4):377-88.

Sisman R, Aksoy A, Yalcin M, Karaoz E. Cytotoxic effects of bulk fill composite resins on human dental pulp stem cells. J Oral Sci. 2016;58(3):299-305.

Polyzois GL, Dahl JE, Hensten-Pettersen A. Biological testing of dental materials: development of national and international standards. Journal of biomaterials applications. 1995;9(4):355-62.

Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D. Biocompatibility of dental materials: Springer; 2009.

Tang AT, Liu Y, Bjorkman L, Ekstrand J. In vitro cytotoxicity of orthodontic bonding resins on human oral fibroblasts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;116(2):132-8.

Gupta SK, Saxena P, Pant VA, Pant AB. Release and toxicity of dental resin composite. Toxicol Int. 2012;19(3):225-34.

Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(8):1991-2000.

Nomoto R. Effect of light wavelength on polymerization of light-cured resins. Dent Mater J. 1997;16(1):60-73.

Uhl A, Mills RW, Jandt KD. Polymerization and light-induced heat of dental composites cured with LED and halogen technology. Biomaterials. 2003;24(10):1809-20.

Price RB, Felix CA, Andreou P. Knoop hardness of ten resin composites irradiated with high-power LED and quartz-tungsten-halogen lights. Biomaterials. 2005;26(15):2631-41.

Rueggeberg FA. State-of-the-art: dental photocuring--a review. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):39-52.

Cender EU, Guler C, Odabasi D. The effects of polymerization mode and layer thickness on monomer released from bulk fill composite resins. Niger J Clin Pract. 2021;24(10):1442-9.

Marigo L, Spagnuolo G, Malara F, Martorana GE, Cordaro M, Lupi A, et al. Relation between conversion degree and cytotoxicity of a flowable bulk-fill and three conventional flowable resin-composites. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(23):4469-80.

Goncalves F, Campos LMP, Rodrigues-Junior EC, Costa FV, Marques PA, Francci CE, et al. A comparative study of bulk-fill composites: degree of conversion, post-gel shrinkage and cytotoxicity. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32:e17.

Nascimento AS, Lima DB, Fook MVL, Albuquerque MS, Lima EA, Sabino MA, et al. Physicomechanical characterization and biological evaluation of bulk-fill composite resin. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32:e107.

Walters NJ, Xia W, Salih V, Ashley PF, Young AM. Poly(propylene glycol) and urethane dimethacrylates improve conversion of dental composites and reveal complexity of cytocompatibility testing. Dent Mater. 2016;32(2):264-77.

Haugen HJ, Marovic D, Par M, Thieu MKL, Reseland JE, Johnsen GF. Bulk Fill Composites Have Similar Performance to Conventional Dental Composites. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(14).

Rodriguez-Lozano FJ, Serrano-Belmonte I, Perez Calvo JC, Coronado-Parra MT, Bernabeu-Esclapez A, Moraleda JM. Effects of two low-shrinkage composites on dental stem cells (viability, cell damaged or apoptosis and mesenchymal markers expression). J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2013;24(4):979-88.

Toh WS, Yap AU, Lim SY. In Vitro Biocompatibility of Contemporary Bulk-fill Composites. Oper Dent. 2015;40(6):644-52.

Demirel G, Gur G, Demirsoy FF, Altuntas EG, Yener-Ilce B, Kilicarslan MA. Cytotoxic effects of contemporary bulk-fill dental composites: A real-time cell analysis. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(1):101-10.

Spagnuolo G, Annunziata M, Rengo S. Cytotoxicity and oxidative stress caused by dental adhesive systems cured with halogen and LED lights. Clin Oral Investig. 2004;8(2):81-5.

Yap AU, Saw TY, Cao T, Ng MM. Composite cure and pulp-cell cytotoxicity associated with LED curing lights. Oper Dent. 2004;29(1):92-9.

Beriat NC, Ertan AA, Canay S, Gurpinar A, Onur MA. Effect of different polymerization methods on the cytotoxicity of dental composites. Eur J Dent. 2010;4(3):287-92.

Sigusch BW, Volpel A, Braun I, Uhl A, Jandt KD. Influence of different light curing units on the cytotoxicity of various dental composites. Dent Mater. 2007;23(11):1342-8.

Knezevic A, Zeljezic D, Kopjar N, Tarle Z. Influence of curing mode intensities on cell culture cytotoxicity/genotoxicity. Am J Dent. 2009;22(1):43-8.

Uhl A, Volpel A, Sigusch BW. Influence of heat from light curing units and dental composite polymerization on cells in vitro. J Dent. 2006;34(4):298-306.

Corekci B, Irgin C, Halicioglu K, Dursun S, Yavuz MZ. Effects of plasma-emulating light-emitting diode (LED) versus conventional LED on cytotoxic effects and polymerization capacity of orthodontic composites. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2014;33(10):1000-7.