The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 4 ( May, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of Tissue Reaction to Some Denture-base Materials: An Animal Study

Behnaz Ebadian, Mohammad Razavi, Solmaz Soleimanpour, Ramin Mosharraf

Citation Information : Ebadian B, Razavi M, Soleimanpour S, Mosharraf R. Evaluation of Tissue Reaction to Some Denture-base Materials: An Animal Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (4):67-74.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-4-67

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-05-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

Controversy continues regarding the biocompatibility of denture base materials. One method to evaluate the biocompatibility of materials is in an animal study. Using dogs as subjects, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the vestibular tissue reaction to cobalt chromium (Co-Cr), heat cure acrylic resin, and acrylic resin mixed with aluminum oxide (Al2O3) compared with a control group using the histopathologic method.

Methods and Materials

Twelve disk shape samples (2 mm × 8 mm) in four groups of Co-Cr, acrylic resin, acrylic resin mixed with a 20% weight ratio of Al2O3, and a control group (Teflon) were fabricated. In one stage surgery two samples of each material (8 samples) was implanted in the buccal vestibule of each dog (n=6), subcutaneously. At 45 and 90-day intervals, half of the samples were excised along with peripheral tissue to assess the presence of inflammation by grading on a scale from 0 to 3 and the presence of a fibrotic capsule using histological observations. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, and Tau b Kendal tests.

Results

Tissue reaction between Co-Cr and the control group was significant (P=0.02), but it was not significant between other groups. There was no significant difference between the 45 and 90-day postinsertion samples. The formation of fibrotic capsule groups was significant (P=0.01). It was significant between the Co-Cr and acrylic resin groups (P=0.01) and the acrylic resin and control groups (P=0.01).

Conclusion

The Co-Cr group was more toxic than the other groups. The inflammation increased during time. The inflammation in two acrylic groups was greater than the control and less than the Co-Cr group. The formation of fibrotic capsule, except in the acrylic resin with Al2O3 group, increased over time.

Clinical Significance

Co-Cr alloys are toxic and can produce damage to living tissue. Heat cure acrylic resin materials have less toxicity, and their use is safer than Co-Cr alloys.

Citation

Ebadian B, Razavi M, Soleimanpour S, Mosharraf R. Evaluation of Tissue Reaction to Some Denture-base Materials: An Animal Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 May; (9)4:067-074.


PDF Share
  1. McCracken's removable partial denture. 10th ed. St.Louis, Mosby 2000;5-10.
  2. In vivo aging of orthodontic alloys: implications for corrosion potential; nickel release and biocompatibility. Angle Orthod 2000; 72(3):222-37.
  3. Ion release from Ni-Mo and Co-Cr-Mo Casting alloys. Int J Prosthodont 1991; 4:152-158.
  4. Cytotoxicity effects of denture base materials on a permanent human oral epithelial cell line and on primary human oral fibroblasts in vitro. Int J Prosthodont 2001; 14(5):439-441.
  5. Effect of metal filler on some physical properties of acrylic resin. J Prosthet Dent 1989;746-751.
  6. Evaluation of thermal conductivity of heat cured acrylic resin mixed with Al2O3. Journal of Dentistry. Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2002; 15(3):21-28.
  7. New acrylic resin composite with improved thermal diffusivity. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79:278-28.
  8. Assessment of the effect of aluminum oxide powder on some physical properties of a heat cure acrylic resin. Should Beheshti Univ. Dent J 2006; 23(4):606-611.
  9. Effects of Base-metal casting alloys on cytoskeletal filaments in cultured human fibroblasts. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17(1):45-51.
  10. Soft tissue response to injectable calcium phosphate cements. Biomaterials 2003; 24(5):749-755.
  11. Robbins basic pathology. 7th ed Philadelphia, Sunders. 2003;33-59.
  12. Metal release from cobalt-chromium partial dentures in the mouth. Acta Odontol Scand 1983; 41(2):71-4.
  13. The in vitro toxicity of cobalt-chromium molybdenum alloy and its constituent metals. Biomaterials 1986; 7(1):25-9.
  14. Reaction of fibroblasts to various dental casting alloys. J Oral Pathol 1988; 17(7):341-7.
  15. Evaluation of the biocompatibility of various dental alloys: Part I- toxic potentials. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1996; 4(3):129-36.
  16. Mast cells and the inflammatory response to different implanted biomaterials. Arch Histol Cytol 2004; 67(3):211-217.
  17. Elements released from dental casting alloys and their cytotoxic effects. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15(5):473-78.
  18. Cellular responses to implant materials: biological, physical and chemical factors. Int Dent J 1983; 33(4):350-731.
  19. Biocompatibility of nitinol alloy as an implant material. J Biomed Mater Res 1976; 10(5):695-731.
  20. Comparative analysis of tissue reaction to acrylic resin materials in studies on wistar strain rats. Ann Acad Med Stetin 1999; 45:253-64.
  21. Biocompatibility and osteogenesis of refractory metal implants, titanium, hafnium, niobium, tantalum and rhenium. Biomaterials 2001; 22(11):1253-62.
  22. Hard, soft tissue and in vitro cell response to porous Nickel-titanium: a biocompatibility evaluation. Biomed Mater Eng 1999; 9(3):151-62.
  23. Comparison of tissue reactions to ketafil and amalgam. J Endodon 1995;211:65-69.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.