Cytotoxic effects to mouse and human gingival fibroblasts of a nanohybrid ormocer versus dimethacrylate-based composites
- 244 Downloads
Tooth-colored composites have emerged as a standard restorative material in caries therapy and have largely replaced materials such as silver amalgam or glass ionomer cements. In addition to their superior esthetics and desirable mechanical properties, composites also comprise negative characteristics, such as wear, shrinkage, and an adverse biocompatibility. Modifications of classic resin-based dental composites have been developed to overcome these shortcomings. For example, ormocers are innovative inorganic-organic hybrid polymers that form a siloxane network modified by the incorporation of organic groups. Recently, a new ormocer, Admira Fusion (VOCO), was introduced to composite technology. The absence of cytotoxic matrix monomers leads to the hypothesis that ormocers have improved biocompatibility compared to resin-based dental restorative materials.
Materials and methods
The aim of this study was to compare the cytotoxic effects of Admira Fusion to a nanohybrid composite (GrandioSO, VOCO) and a nanofiller composite (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M Espe) on the standard dermal mouse fibroblasts (L929) and human gingival fibroblasts (GF-1) via a Cell Counting Kit-8 (CCK-8) assay.
Admira Fusion was significantly less cytotoxic than GrandioSO and Filtek Supreme XTE to both the standard mouse dermal fibroblasts (L929) and human gingival fibroblasts.
Compared to other resin-based dental restorative materials, the ormocer (Admira Fusion) possesses a superior biocompatibility in vitro. Future research studies are needed to confirm our results.
Clinically, dental practitioners and their patients might benefit from Admira Fusion in terms of reduced adverse biologic reactions compared to resin-based dental restorative materials.
KeywordsComposite Ormocer Biocompatibility CCK-8 Mouse fibroblasts Human gingival fibroblasts
We would like to thank VOCO for the financial support.
This work was supported by VOCO.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 11.Gregor L, Dorien L, Bortolotto T, Feilzer AJ, Krejci I (2016) Marginal integrity of low-shrinking versus methacrylate-based composite: effect of different one-step self-etch adhesives. OdontologyGoogle Scholar
- 21.Skin H-PA (1998) Mucosal reactions associated with dental materials. Eur J Oral Sci 106(2 Pt 2):707–712Google Scholar
- 23.Hensten-Pettersen A, Helgeland K (1981) Sensitivity of different human cell lines in the biologic evaluation of dental resin-based restorative materials. Scand J Dent Res 89(1):102–107Google Scholar
- 31.Failli A, Legitimo A, Orsini G, Castagna M, Spisni R, Miccoli P, Consolini R (2013) Antiproliferative effects of 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin in colon cancer cell lines: comparison of three different cytotoxicity assays. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 27(1):275–284Google Scholar