Toxicity of Pre-heated Composites Polymerized Directly and Through CAD/CAM Overlay

Abstract

Objectives: The aim was to compare cytotoxicity/genotoxicity of pre-heated composites polymerized through CAD/CAM overlays on isolated human peripheral blood lymphocytes. Material and Methods: A microhybrid (Z100, 3M ESPE) and nanofilled composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra, 3M ESPE) were heated in a heating unit (Calset, AdDent Inc.) at different temperatures: 37 oC, 54 oC, and 68 oC. A small amount of heated composite was placed in a cylindrical mold (6mm diameter; 0.65mm thick), covered with a Mylar sheet, pressed and light-cured directly and through 2 mm thick CAD/CAM ceramic-reinforced polymer (CRP)(LAVA Ultimate, 3M ESPE) or CAD/CAM lithium disilicate ceramic (LDC)(e.max, Ivoclar/Vivadent) overlay. After curing, the specimens were immediately placed in a prepared lymphocyte cell culture. Cytotoxicity was assessed using a dye exclusion method by simultaneous staining with ethidium bromide and acridine orange, aimed to determine percentages of viable, apoptotic and necrotic cells. Genotoxicity was studied using alkaline comet assay. Results: For Z100, the highest percentage of viable cells is recorded at T1 (93.7%) after direct light curing, followed by light curing through CRP (92.3%) and through LDC (91.7%T1,T3). For Filtek Supreme Ultra, the highest percentage of viable cells is recorded while curing through CRP (91.0% T2), followed by LDC (90% T1,T3) and direct light curing (88.7%T2). Conclusion: For both tested materials, preheating the procedure at T1 and T2 may be the procedure of choice. In terms of genotoxicity, reheating at T3 may not be suggested.

Keywords

• Composite resins
• cytotoxicity
• genotoxicity
• dental light curing units