Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 133–139 | Cite as

Cytotoxic effects to mouse and human gingival fibroblasts of a nanohybrid ormocer versus dimethacrylate-based composites

  • Andrea Schubert
  • Christopher Ziegler
  • Andrea Bernhard
  • Ralf Bürgers
  • Nicolai MiosgeEmail author
Original Article



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.

Clinical significance

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.


Composite 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.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Goldberg M (2008) In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resin components: a review. Clin Oral Investig 12(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferracane JL (1994) Elution of leachable components from composites. J Oral Rehabil 21(4):441–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carmichael AJ, Gibson JJ, Walls AW (1997) Allergic contact dermatitis to bisphenol-A-glycidyldimethacrylate (BIS-GMA) dental resin associated with sensitivity to epoxy resin. Br Dent J 183(8):297–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geurtsen W, Lehmann F, Spahl W, Leyhausen G (1998) Cytotoxicity of 35 dental resin composite monomers/additives in permanent 3T3 and three human primary fibroblast cultures. J Biomed Mater Res 41(3):474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Engelmann J, Leyhausen G, Leibfritz D, Geurtsen W (2002) Effect of TEGDMA on the intracellular glutathione concentration of human gingival fibroblasts. J Biomed Mater Res 63(6):746–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang HH, Guo MK, Kasten FH, Chang MC, Huang GF, Wang YL, Wang RS, Jeng JH (2005) Stimulation of glutathione depletion, ROS production and cell cycle arrest of dental pulp cells and gingival epithelial cells by HEMA. Biomaterials 26(7):745–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stanislawski L, Daniau X, Lauti A, Goldberg M (1999) Factors responsible for pulp cell cytotoxicity induced by resin-modified glass ionomer cements. J Biomed Mater Res 48(3):277–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jaffer F, Finer Y, Santerre JP (2002) Interactions between resin monomers and commercial composite resins with human saliva derived esterases. Biomaterials 23(7):1707–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fleming GJ, Hall DP, Shortall AC, Burke FJ (2005) Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with posterior filling materials of varying reported volumetric shrinkage values. J Dent 33(2):139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lutz F, Krejci I (2000) Amalgam substitutes: a critical analysis. J Esthet Dent 12(3):146–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Susila AV, Balasubramanian V (2016) Correlation of elution and sensitivity of cell lines to dental composites. Dent Mater 32(3):e63–e72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Al-Ahdal K, Silikas N, Watts DC (2015) Development of viscoelastic stability of resin-composites incorporating novel matrices. Dent Mater 31(12):1561–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bacchi A, Feitosa VP, da Silva Fonseca AS, Cavalcante LM, Silikas N, Schneider LF (2015) Shrinkage, stress, and modulus of dimethacrylate, ormocer, and silorane composites. J Conserv Dent 18(5):384–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolter H, Storch W, Ott H (1994) New inorganic/organic copolymers (ORMOCERs) for dental applications. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 346:143–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahmoud SH, El-Embaby AE, AbdAllah AM (2014) Clinical performance of ormocer, nanofilled, and nanoceramic resin composites in class I and class II restorations: a three-year evaluation. Oper Dent 39(1):32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Monsarrat P, Garnier S, Vergnes JN, Nasr K, Grosgogeat B, Joniot S (2017) Survival of directly placed ormocer-based restorative materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Dent Mater 33(5):e212-e20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moszner N, Gianasmidis A, Klapdohr S, Fischer UK, Rheinberger V (2008) Sol-gel materials 2. Light-curing dental composites based on ormocers of cross-linking alkoxysilane methacrylates and further nano-components. Dent Mater 24(6):851–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Al-Hiyasat AS, Darmani H, Milhem MM (2005) Cytotoxicity evaluation of dental resin composites and their flowable derivatives. Clin Oral Investig 9(1):21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kydd WL, Daly CH (1982) The biologic and mechanical effects of stress on oral mucosa. J Prosthet Dent 47(3):317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Skin H-PA (1998) Mucosal reactions associated with dental materials. Eur J Oral Sci 106(2 Pt 2):707–712Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wataha JC, Lockwood PE, Bouillaguet S, Noda M (2003) In vitro biological response to core and flowable dental restorative materials. Dent Mater 19(1):25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 24.
    Theilig C, Tegtmeier Y, Leyhausen G, Geurtsen W (2000) Effects of BisGMA and TEGDMA on proliferation, migration, and tenascin expression of human fibroblasts and keratinocytes. J Biomed Mater Res 53(6):632–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eljezi T, Pinta P, Richard D, Pinguet J, Chezal JM, Chagnon MC, Sautou V, Grimandi G, Moreau E (2017) In vitro cytotoxic effects of DEHP-alternative plasticizers and their primary metabolites on a L929 cell line. Chemosphere 173:452–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ishiyama M, Miyazono Y, Sasamoto K, Ohkura Y, Ueno K (1997) A highly water-soluble disulfonated tetrazolium salt as a chromogenic indicator for NADH as well as cell viability. Talanta 44(7):1299–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    He SJ, Cao J, Li YS, Yang JC, Zhou M, Qu CY, Zhang Y, Shen F, Chen Y, Li MM, Xu LM (2016) CdSe/ZnS quantum dots induce photodynamic effects and cytotoxicity in pancreatic cancer cells. World J Gastroenterol 22(21):5012–5022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu S, Yang H, Wan L, Cai HW, Li SF, Li YP, Cheng JQ, Lu XF (2011) Enhancement of cytotoxicity of antimicrobial peptide magainin II in tumor cells by bombesin-targeted delivery. Acta Pharmacol Sin 32(1):79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Enzenhofer E, Kadletz L, Stanisz I, Kotowski U, Seemann R, Schmid R, Thurnher D, Heiduschka G (2017) Effect of the histone deacetylase inhibitor resminostat on head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell lines. Head Neck 39:900–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miyamoto T, Min W, Lillehoj HS (2002) Lymphocyte proliferation response during Eimeria tenella infection assessed by a new, reliable, nonradioactive colorimetric assay. Avian Dis 46(1):10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 32.
    Durner J, Obermaier J, Draenert M, Ilie N (2012) Correlation of the degree of conversion with the amount of elutable substances in nano-hybrid dental composites. Dent Mater 28(11):1146–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hanks CT, Strawn SE, Wataha JC, Craig RG (1991) Cytotoxic effects of resin components on cultured mammalian fibroblasts. J Dent Res 70(11):1450–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Batarseh G, Windsor LJ, Labban NY, Liu Y, Gregson K (2014) Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate induction of apoptotic proteins in pulp fibroblasts. Oper Dent 39(1):E1–E8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chang HH, Chang MC, Lin LD, Lee JJ, Wang TM, Huang CH, Yang TT, Lin HJ, Jeng JH (2010) The mechanisms of cytotoxicity of urethane dimethacrylate to Chinese hamster ovary cells. Biomaterials 31(27):6917–6925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alshali RZ, Salim NA, Sung R, Satterthwaite JD, Silikas N (2015) Analysis of long-term monomer elution from bulk-fill and conventional resin-composites using high performance liquid chromatography. Dent Mater 31(12):1587–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Amato PA, Martins RP, dos Santos Cruz CA, Capella MV, Martins LP (2014) Time reduction of light curing: influence on conversion degree and microhardness of orthodontic composites. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146(1):40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Caughman WF, Caughman GB, Shiflett RA, Rueggeberg F, Schuster GS (1991) Correlation of cytotoxicity, filler loading and curing time of dental composites. Biomaterials 12(8):737–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Randolph LD, Palin WM, Leloup G, Leprince JG (2016) Filler characteristics of modern dental resin composites and their influence on physico-mechanical properties. Dent Mater 32(12):1586–1599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bouillaguet S, Shaw L, Gonzalez L, Wataha JC, Krejci I (2002) Long-term cytotoxicity of resin-based dental restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 29(1):7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ferracane JL, Condon JR (1990) Rate of elution of leachable components from composite. Dent Mater 6(4):282–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Moharamzadeh K, Van Noort R, Brook IM, Scutt AM (2007) Cytotoxicity of resin monomers on human gingival fibroblasts and HaCaT keratinocytes. Dent Mater 23(1):40–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Schubert
    • 1
  • Christopher Ziegler
    • 1
  • Andrea Bernhard
    • 1
  • Ralf Bürgers
    • 1
  • Nicolai Miosge
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Tissue Regeneration and Oral Biology Work Group, Department of ProsthodonticsGeorg August UniversityGoettingenGermany

Personalised recommendations