The national survey of adverse reactions to dental materials in the UK: a preliminary study by the UK Adverse Reactions Reporting Project

Embryotoxicity and teratogenesis of orthodontic acrylic resin in zebrafish

Objectives

This study investigated the in vivo embryotoxicity, teratogenic potential, and additional effects of orthodontic acrylic resin as well as its components, utilizing zebrafish as a model organism. The research focused on morphological, cardiac, behavioral, and cognitive evaluations that were performed on embryos and larval-stage animals subjected to chronic exposure.

Materials and methods

Embryo and larval-stage zebrafish were categorized into five experimental groups, which were further subdivided into five subgroups. These subgroups included three specific doses for each tested substance, a control with the vehicle (0.1 % dimethyl sulfoxide in water), and an absolute control (water). Assessments were performed on day 5 post-fertilization, which included morphological, cardiac, behavioral, and cognitive evaluations. All experiments had a sample size of ten animals and were performed in triplicate. Survival and hatching rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier test, while other measurements were assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the Tukey post hoc test.

Results

Statistically significant differences were observed between the control and treatment groups across all the tested substances for heart rate, cognitive responsiveness, and cellular apoptosis. However, survival, hatching rate, and other parameters exhibited no significant variation, except for the highest dose in the dibutyl phthalate group, which demonstrated a notable difference in survival.

Conclusions

Chronic exposure to acrylic resin and its components may be associated with decreased cognitive ability and cardiac rhythm, as well as an increase in the level of cellular apoptosis in zebrafish.

Contact allergies to dental materials in patients

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding contact allergies and intolerance reactions to dental materials are widespread among patients. Development of novel dental materials and less frequent amalgam use may alter sensitization profiles in patients with possible contact allergy.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse current sensitization patterns to dental materials in patients with suspected contact allergy.

METHODS

This retrospective, multicentre analysis from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) selected participants from 169 834 people tested in 2005-2019 and registered with (i) an affected area of 'mouth' (and 'lips'/'perioral'), (ii) with the dental material in question belonging to one of three groups (dental filling materials, oral implants or dentures or equivalents) and (iii) with patch-testing done in parallel with the German baseline series, (dental) metal series and dental technician series.

RESULTS

A total of 2730 of 169 834 tested patients met the inclusion criteria. The patients were predominantly women (81.2%) aged ≥ 40 years (92.8%). The sensitization rates with confirmed allergic contact stomatitis in women (n = 444) were highest for metals (nickel 28.6%, palladium 21.4%, amalgam 10.9%), (meth)acrylates [2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) 4.8%] and the substances propolis (6.8%) and 'balsam of Peru' (11.4%). The most relevant acrylates were HEMA, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, methyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and pentaerythritol triacrylate. Few men were diagnosed with allergic contact stomatitis (n = 68); sensitization rates in men were highest for propolis (14.9%) and amalgam (13.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Allergic contact stomatitis to dental materials is rare. Patch testing should not only focus on metals such as nickel, palladium, amalgam and gold, but also (meth)acrylates and the natural substances propolis and 'balsam of Peru'.

General diseases and medications in 687 patients reporting on adverse effects from dental materials

OBJECTIVES

Examination of patients claiming adverse effects from dental materials can be very challenging. Particularly, systemic aspects must be considered besides dental and orofacial diseases and allergies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate a cohort of 687 patients reporting on adverse effects from dental materials focusing on findings related to known general diseases or conditions or medication-related findings with relevance to their subjective complaints.

METHODS

Six hundred eighty-seven patients visiting a specialized consultation on claimed adverse effects from dental materials were retrospectively investigated for their subjective complaints, findings related to known general diseases or conditions, medication-related findings, dental and orofacial findings, or allergies with relevance to their subjective complaints.

RESULTS

The most frequent subjective complaints were burning mouth (44.1%), taste disorders (28.5%), and dry mouth (23.7%). In 58.4% of the patients, dental and orofacial findings relevant to their complaints could be found. Findings related to known general diseases or conditions or medication-related findings were found in 28.7% or 21.0% of the patients, respectively. Regarding medications, findings related to antihypertensives (10.0%) and psychotropic drugs (5.7%) were found most frequently. Relevant diagnosed allergies toward dental materials were found in 11.9%, hyposalivation in 9.6% of the patients. In 15.1% of the patients, no objectifiable causes for the expressed complaints could be found.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients complaining of adverse effects from dental materials, findings related to known general diseases or conditions and medications should be given particular consideration, while still in some patients, no objectifiable causes for their complaints can be found.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

For patients complaining about adverse effects from dental materials, specialized consultations and close collaboration with experts from other medical fields are eligible.

The safety and biocompatibility of direct aesthetic restorative materials

Restorative dental materials are among the most important medical devices in terms of the numbers of patients who benefit and the technical sophistication of the products. Many though contain toxic or noxious substances, including potentially sensitising resin monomers, photoinitiators, acidic polymers and glass or ceramic filler particles. Despite this, dental materials are among the safest medical devices in use today, with very few reports of adverse reactions or injuries among both patients or the dental team. This paper considers the potential for adverse reactions to dental materials, current evidence for harm and finally examines the reasons why in real-world clinical use the likelihood of an adverse event is extremely low. Medical devices regulations, responsible manufacture and clinical vigilance all appear to play important roles in ensuring that dental materials do not cause or present a risk to patients. While this excellent in-practice safety record is welcome, there is now increasing interest in the 'macro' scale biocompatibility of dental materials and their packaging in the environment, subjects that have been relatively neglected until recently. It was concluded that this should be a priority for future research and development and support is needed from governments alongside the manufacturing industry and the profession.

Dental material allergies and oral soft tissue reactions

Dental materials can cause reactions to the oral mucosa and present to the general dental practitioner. These are often referred to as 'allergies' but are frequently lichenoid reactions. Most of these are related to dental amalgam restorations and can be remedied by replacing the restoration with another suitable material. Other metals, including gold, palladium, nickel and chrome, have also been reported to trigger mucosal changes. Less commonly, issues arise from other restorative materials, including denture acrylics, composites and glass polyalkenoates. Reactions are also reported due to endodontic and sealing materials. It is unclear what role skin 'patch' testing has in managing dental material allergies. This article aims to give the practitioner a clearer picture of dental material allergy issues and how they should be approached in primary dental practice.

French guidelines for the management of oral lichen planus (excluding pharmacological therapy)

INTRODUCTION

Oral lichen is a chronic inflammatory disease for which diagnostic management and follow-up are heterogeneous given the absence of specific guidelines in France. Our objective was to develop French multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of oral lichen.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Working groups from the Groupe d'Etude de la Muqueuse Buccale (GEMUB) formulated a list of research questions and the corresponding recommendations according to the "formal consensus" method for developing practice guidelines. These recommendations were submitted to a group of experts and the degree of agreement for each recommendation was assessed by a scoring group.

RESULTS

Twenty-two research questions, divided into 3 themes (nosological classification and initial assessment, induced oral lichenoid lesions, and follow-up) resulted in 22 recommendations. Initial biopsy for histology is recommended in the absence of reticulated lesions. Biopsy for direct immunofluorescence is recommended for ulcerated, erosive, bullous types and for diffuse erythematous gingivitis. Management should include a periodontal and dental check-up, and investigation for extra-oral lesions. Hepatitis C testing is recommended only if risk factors are present. Definitions, triggering factors and the management of "induced oral lichenoid lesions" were clarified. Oral lichen must be monitored by a practitioner familiar with the disease at least once a year, using objective tools.

CONCLUSION

This formalised consensus of multidisciplinary experts provides clinical practice guidelines on the management and monitoring of oral lichen.

A critical analysis of research methods and experimental models to study biocompatibility of endodontic materials

Materials used for endodontics and with direct contact to tissues have a wide range of indications, from vital pulpal treatments to root filling materials and those used in endodontic surgery. In principle, interaction with dental materials may result in damage to tissues locally or systemically. Thus, a great variety of test methods are applied to evaluate a materials' potential risk of adverse biological effects to ensure their biocompatibility before commercialization. However, the results of biocompatibility evaluations are dependent on not only the tested materials but also the test methods due to the diversity of these effects and numerous variables involved. In addition, diverse biological effects require equally diverse assessments on a structured and planned approach. Such a structured assessment of the materials consists of four phases: general toxicity, local tissue irritation, pre‐clinical tests and clinical evaluations. Various types of screening assays are available; it is imperative to understand their advantages and limitations to recognize their appropriateness and for an accurate interpretation of their results. Recent scientific advances are rapidly introducing new materials to endodontics including nanomaterials, gene therapy and tissue engineering biomaterials. These new modalities open a new era to restore and regenerate dental tissues; however, all these new technologies can also present new hazards to patients. Before any clinical usage, new materials must be proven to be safe and not hazardous to health. Certain international standards exist for safety evaluation of dental materials (ISO 10993 series, ISO 7405 and ISO 14155‐1), but researchers often fail to follow these standards due to lack of access to standards, limitation of the guidelines and complexity of new experimental methods, which may cause technical errors. Moreover, many laboratories have developed their testing strategy for biocompatibility, which makes any comparison between findings more difficult. The purpose of this review was to discuss the concept of biocompatibility, structured test programmes and international standards for testing the biocompatibility of endodontic material biocompatibility. The text will further detail current test methods for evaluating the biocompatibility of endodontic materials, and their advantages and limitations.

Non-allergy-related dental and orofacial findings in 625 patients reporting on adverse effects from dental materials

OBJECTIVE

In a cohort of 500 patients complaining about adverse effects from dental materials, allergies were found to be contributing to the patients' subjective complaints in only about 14% of the cases. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to investigate an enlarged cohort of 625 patients reporting on adverse effects from dental materials on non-allergy-related dental or orofacial findings with relevance for their subjective complaints.

METHODS

625 patients visiting a specialized consultation on suspected adverse effects from dental materials were characterized regarding age and sex distribution, subjective complaints, allergies, and dental and orofacial findings with relevance for their subjective complaints.

RESULTS

This cohort comprised about 81% females and the median age was 58 years. The most often reported subjective complaints were burning mouth (43.8%), taste disorders (28.8%) and dry mouth (22.7%). Allergies toward dental materials were found in 12.3%. In 28.0% of the patients, no dental or orofacial findings with relevance for the subjective complaints expressed by the patients could be found. 19.8% of the patients exhibited relevant functional symptoms, 16.2% relevant orofacial diseases, 15.2% relevant mechanical irritations, 10.1% or 9.4% relevant tooth-related or plaque-related symptoms, respectively, 9.4% hyposalivation, and in 7.2% relevant manufacturing faults were found.

SIGNIFICANCE

In patients complaining about adverse effects from dental materials, a wide variety of dental or orofacial findings need to be considered despite allergies, although a quarter of the patients did not present any relevant dental or orofacial finding. Therefore, specialized consultations and close collaboration with experts from other fields are eligible.

Recent update on potential cytotoxicity, biocompatibility and preventive measures of biomaterials used in dentistry

Dental treatment is provided for a wide variety of oral health problems like dental caries, periodontal diseases, periapical infections, replacement of missing teeth and orthodontic problems. Various biomaterials, like composite resins, amalgam, glass ionomer cement, acrylic resins, metal alloys, impression materials, bone grafts, membranes, local anaesthetics, etc., are used for dental applications. The physical and chemical characteristics of these materials influence the outcome of dental treatment. It also impacts on the biological, allergic and toxic potential of biomaterials. With innovations in science and their positive results, there is also a need for awareness about the biological risks of these biomaterials. The aim of dental treatment is to have effective, yet safe, and long-lasting results for the benefit of patients. For this, it is important to have a thorough understanding of biomaterials and their effects on local and systemic health. Materials used in dentistry undergo a series of analyses before their oral applications. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first and original review that discusses the reasons for and studies on the toxicity of commonly used biomaterials for applications in dentistry. It will help clinicians to formulate a methodical approach for the selection of dental biomaterials, thus providing an awareness for forecasting their risk of toxic reactions.

A review on potential toxicity of dental material and screening their biocompatibility

OBJECTIVES

A wide range of compounds are utilized in dentistry such as dental composites, resins, and implants. The successful clinical use of dental materials relies on theirm physiochemical properties as well as biological and toxicological reliability. Different local and systemic toxicities of dental materials have been reported. Placement of these materials in oral cavity for a long time period might yield unwanted reactions. An extensive variety of materials is used in dentistry including filling materials, restorative materials, intracanal medicines, prosthetic materials, different types of implants, liners, and irrigants. The increasing rate in development of the novel materials with applications in the dental field has led to an increased consciousness of the biological risks and tempting restrictions of these materials. The biocompatibility of a biomaterial used for the replacement or filling of biological tissue such as teeth always had a high concern within the health care disciplines for patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Any material used in humans should be tested before clinical application. There are many tests evaluating biocompatibility of these materials at the point of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical investigations.

RESULTS

The current review discusses the potential toxicity of dental material and screening of their biocompatibility.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

It is essential to use healthy and safe materials medical approaches. In dentistry, application of different materials in long-term oral usage demands low or nontoxic agents gains importance for both patients and the staff. Furthermore, screening tests should evaluate any potential toxicity before clinical application.

Five hundred patients reporting on adverse effects from dental materials: Frequencies, complaints, symptoms, allergies

OBJECTIVE

Information on patients with real or claimed adverse reactions towards dental materials in large patient cohorts is rare. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate patients reporting on complaints and symptoms to dental materials over a 16-year period.

METHODS

Five hundred patients were characterized by one single dental team regarding age and sex distribution, subjective complaints and objective intraoral symptoms, and allergy status relevant to dental materials.

RESULTS

Elder patients and females predominated. Subjective complaints were reported by 490 patients, ranging from 1 to 12 complaints per patient. Most often, burning mouth (44%), tooth-/jawache (22%) and dry mouth (20%) were reported. In 54% no objective intraoral symptom was diagnosed. The main objective intraoral symptoms were tongue anomalies (lingua plicata or geographica; 14%), gingivitis adjacent to restorations (12%), redness of the palate or the edentulous ridge (7%), oral lichen planus (6%), grayish discolorations, lichenoid contact lesions, and leukoplakia (<5%). Patch testing of 416 (83%) patients revealed that allergy was diagnosed as contributing to the complaints or symptoms in 70 (14%) patients with metals being the most frequent allergens. Gingivitis adjacent to restorations (3.2%), redness of the palate or edentulous ridge (1.4%) and whitish lichen-like lesions (1.8%) were associated to allergy from dental materials.

SIGNIFICANCE

The high number of subjective complaints per patient and their wide variety suggests that most patients seriously suffered. Furthermore, the fact that only 46% of the patients had objective intraoral symptoms demands for an interdisciplinary collaboration to elucidate other than dental causes.

Systematic review of patient safety interventions in dentistry

Background

The concept of patient safety in dentistry is in its infancy, with little knowledge about the effectiveness of tools or interventions developed to improve patient safety or to minimise the occurrence of adverse events.

Methods

The aim of this qualitative systematic review was to search the academic and grey literature to identify and assess tools or interventions used in dental care settings to maintain or improve patient safety. All study designs were included from all dental care settings. Outcome measures were: patient safety, harm prevention, risk minimization, patient satisfaction and patient acceptability, professional acceptability, efficacy, cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Quality assessments were performed on the included studies based on CASP tools. Further analysis was undertaken to discover whether any of the tools had been trialled or verified by the authors, or by subsequent authors.

Results

Following abstract screening, and initial qualitative synthesis, nine studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria with 31 being excluded following initial analysis. Tools identified included: checklists (4 studies), reporting systems (3), the use of electronic notes (1) and trigger tools (1). Grey literature searching did not identify any further appropriate studies. In terms of study design, there were observational studies including audit cycles (5 studies), epidemiological studies (3) and prospective cluster randomised clinical trials (1). The quality of the studies varied and none of their outcomes were verified by other researchers. The tools identified have the potential to be used for measuring and improving patient safety in dentistry, with two surgical safety checklists demonstrating a reduction in erroneous dental extractions to nil following their introduction. Reporting systems provide epidemiological data, however, it is not known whether they lead to any improvement in patient safety. The one study on trigger tools demonstrates a 50 % positive predictive value for safety incidents. It is not clear as to what impact the introduction of electronic guidelines has on patient safety outcomes.

Conclusions

This systematic review finds that the only interventions in dentistry that reduce or minimise adverse events are surgical safety checklists. We believe this to be the first systematic review in this field; it demonstrates the need for further research into patient safety in dentistry across several domains: epidemiological, conceptual understanding and patient and practitioner involvement.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12903-015-0136-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In Vitro Biocompatibility of Contemporary Bulk-fill Composites

This study evaluated the biocompatibility of contemporary bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBCs) including PRG (pre-reacted glass ionomer) materials based on the International Organization for Standardization 10993. In addition, the effect of composite thickness on cytotoxicity was also assessed. Two standard composites, two bulk-fill PRG RBCs, and three bulk-fill non-PRG RBCs were investigated. Block-shaped specimens of 2-mm and 4-mm thickness were cured with an irradiance of 700 mW/cm(2) for 20 seconds with a light-emitting diode curing light and eluted with culture medium at 37°C for 24 hours. L929 mouse fibroblasts were exposed to extracts at varying dilutions (1:1, 1:2, and 1:10) for 24 hours. Analyses were performed to assess cytotoxicity, phase contrast microscopy, and quantitative cell viability. Among the bulk-fill RBCs, extracts of PRG materials resulted in the lowest cell viability. At 4-mm thickness, undiluted extracts of bulk-fill non-PRG RBCs had significantly higher cell viability than the standard composites. Chemical composition, specimen thickness, and testing concentrations of extracts had significant effects on cell viability and morphology. Cytotoxic effects of composites on cell viability were parallel with cell morphologic changes. Not all bulk-fill RBCs demonstrated high cell viability (>70%) at 4-mm thickness despite manufacturers' recommendations of bulk placement and curing.

Biocompatibility of various dental materials in contemporary dentistry: a narrative insight

In the past few decades, there has been an increase in demand for safety evaluation and control of dental materials used daily in dentistry; however, this task is difficult and cumbersome. Dental materials that are passive and do not react with the oral environment will be more stable and have superior durability. It is expected that dental materials will be universally accepted and will not cause harm or injury to the surrounding structures in the oral cavity. This is an entirely negative approach to the material tolerance and biocompatibility, and hides the possibility that some positive gains can be achieved. Side-effects of dental materials are believed to be rare, and generally, those that have been reported are mild. There are wide varieties of materials used in dentistry, which include liners, irrigants, intracanal filling materials, intracanal medicaments, prosthetic materials, restorative materials, subgingival implants, and mouth rinses. Therefore, in this study, the biocompatibility of various commonly-used clinical materials used in contemporary dentistry was discussed.

Urban legends series: lichen planus

Oral Diseases (2012) Lichen planus (LP) is a common disorder affecting the oral cavity (OLP) and skin. Despite intensive research, LP/OLP etiology and treatment remain controversial. We investigated four controversial topics: (i) Is hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection associated with LP and involved in its pathogenesis? (ii) Should all patients with LP be screened for HCV? (iii) Should patients with OLP have all their amalgam restorations removed? (iv) Are there any new treatments for OLP? Results from extensive literature searches suggested that: (i) Robust evidence from three meta-analyses indicate that HCV is associated with LP and might be involved in OLP pathogenesis (ii) It would be prudent to screen patients with LP/OLP at significant risk with an ELISA for HCV antibodies using country-specific screening strategies (iii) There is no evidence that either OLP or oral lichenoid lesions patients would routinely benefit from having all their amalgam restorations replaced. Weak evidence from potentially very biased, small, non-randomized, unblinded studies suggests that a small fraction of patients may benefit from targeted amalgam replacement. (iv) There is weak evidence that, among new OLP treatments, topical pimecrolimus, aloe vera, and oral curcuminoids may be useful. The development of specific formulations for oral delivery of topical medications is a promising field.

In vitro biocompatibility of novel Au-Pt-based metal-ceramic alloys

The aim of this research was to evaluate the effect of individual metallic elements within experimental Au-Pt-based metal-ceramic alloys on in vitro biocompatibility. A binary Au-10 at.% Pt alloy (AP10) was designed as a parent alloy. Six ternary AP10-X (X = In/Fe/Sn/Zn) alloys and four quaternary (AP10-In2)-Y (Y = Fe/Sn/Zn) with different compositions were cast into square plates with size 10X10X0.5 mm(3) and subjected to porcelain-firing thermal cycling. A commercial alloy was used as a control. In vitro biocompatibility was investigated using L929 murine aneuploid fibrosarcoma cell line. The test samples and cells were incubated at 37°C in a 5% CO(2) atmosphere for 72 h. Alamar™ Blue Assay was carried out to determine the respiratory viability of cultures maintained in the presence of the different materials. The cell only control showed significantly higher levels of cell viability than all six of the ternary alloys and two of the four quaternary alloys, (AP10-In2)-Zn2.1 and (AP10-In2)-Sn1.0 (P < 0.05). The quaternary alloys showed slightly higher levels of cell viability than the ternary alloys, with the exception of AP10-Sn0.9. No statistical differences were seen between the ternary and quaternary alloy groups. Acceptable cell viability was observed on the surfaces of all the alloys.

Biocompatibility of Resin-based Dental Materials

Oral and mucosal adverse reactions to resin-based dental materials have been reported. Numerous studies have examined the biocompatibility of restorative dental materials and their components, and a wide range of test systems for the evaluation of the biological effects of these materials have been developed. This article reviews the biological aspects of resin-based dental materials and discusses the conventional as well as the new techniques used for biocompatibility assessment of dental materials.

The effect of hydrogen peroxide concentration on metal ion release from dental casting alloys

There are concerns that tooth bleaching agents may adversely affect dental materials. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that increasing concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (HP) are more effective than water at increasing metal ion release from two typical dental casting alloys during bleaching. Discs (n = 28 for each alloy) were prepared by casting and heat treated to simulate a typical porcelain-firing cycle. Discs (n = 7) of each alloy were immersed in either 0%, 3%, 10% or 30% (w/v) HP solutions for 24 h at 37 degrees C. Samples were taken for metal ion release determination using inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry and the data analysed using a two-way anova followed by a one-way anova. The surface roughness of each disc was measured using a Talysurf contact profilometer before and after bleaching and the data analysed using a paired t-test. With the exception of gold, the differences in metal ion concentration after treatment with 0% (control) and each of 3%, 10% and 30% HP (w/v) were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Metal ion release from the two alloys increased with increasing HP concentrations (over 3000% increase in Ni and 1400% increase in Pd ions were recorded when HP concentration increased from 0% to 30%). Surface roughness values of the samples before and after bleaching were not significantly different (P > 0.05) Exposure of the two dental casting alloys to HP solutions increased metal ion release of all the elements except gold.

Do adverse effects of dental materials exist? What are the consequences, and how can they be diagnosed and treated?

OBJECTIVES

All dental biomaterials release substances into the oral environment to a varying degree. Various preclinical biocompatibility test systems have been introduced, aiming at an evaluation of the potential risks of dental materials. Potential pathogenic effects of released substances from dental materials have been demonstrated. For the biocompatibility of a biomaterial, it is not only important that minimal diffusable substances are released when it is in body contact--the material must also fulfill the function for which it has been designed. This is also very much dependent on the material properties and its handling properties. The aim of this review was to generate an overview of the present status concerning adverse reactions among patients and personnel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed using a defined search strategy in order to evaluate all MEDLINE-literature published between 1996 and 2006.

RESULTS

The compilation of the literature available has revealed that the majority of studies have been carried out on patients compared with personnel. Adverse reactions towards dental materials do occur, but the prevalence and incidence are difficult to obtain. The results were essentially based on cohort studies. Clinical trials, especially randomized-controlled trials, are in the minority of all studies investigated, with the exception of composite and bonding studies, where clinical trials, but not randomized-controlled trials, represent the majority of studies. Patients and personnel were treated separately in the manuscript. Amalgam studies show the lowest degree of verified material-related diagnosis. Even if objective symptoms related to adverse reactions with polymer resin-based materials have been reported, postoperative sensitivity dominates reports concerning composites/bondings. Verified occupational effects among dental personnel show a low frequency of allergy/toxic reactions. Irritative hand eczema seemed to be more common than in the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient- and personnel-related studies are of variable quality and can be improved. There is a need for a better description of the content of materials. A registry for adverse effects of dental materials would be useful to detect the occurrence of low-incidence events.

FDI report on adverse reactions to resin-based materials

Resin-based restorative materials are considered safe for the vast majority of dental patients. Although constituent chemicals such as monomers, accelerators and initiators can potentially leach out of cured resin-based materials after placement, adverse reactions to these chemicals are rare and reaction symptoms commonly subside after removal of the materials. Dentists should be aware of the rare possibility that patients could have adverse reactions to constituents of resin-based materials and be vigilant in observing any adverse reactions after restoration placement. Dentists should also be cognisant of patient complaints about adverse reactions that may result from components of resin-based materials. To minimise monomer leaching and any potential risk of dermatological reactions, resin-based materials should be adequately cured. Dental health care workers should avoid direct skin contact with uncured resin-based materials. Latex and vinyl gloves do not provide adequate barrier protection to the monomers in resin-based materials.

HPLC analysis of components released from dental composites with different resin compositions using different extraction media

Components released from dental composite resins are essential factors in the assessment of biocompatibility of these materials. The effect of different extraction media on monomer release from composite resins based on different monomer types was evaluated. Three types of visible light cured composite resins were formulated based on the following monomers: triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), bisphenol A glycerolate dimethacrylate (BisGMA), and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA). Seventy-five composite resin discs were fabricated and light cured for 1 min in the absence of oxygen. Extraction media used were: distilled water, saline solution, artificial saliva, serum-free culture medium, and culture medium with 10% fetal calf serum. The analysis of extracts from the composite resins was carried out by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). Quantifiable amounts of TEGDMA were released into the aqueous media. However, BisGMA and UDMA were not detectable in any of the extracts from the composite resins. Statistical analysis by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test showed that there was a significant difference in TEGDMA release between culture media and other media (p < 0.05). From the results of this experiment it can be concluded that TEGDMA-based composite resins can release a high quantity of monomer into aqueous environments. The type of extraction medium may have a significant effect on monomer release from composite resins.

Investigation of reactions to dental materials

Patients undergoing dental treatment can be exposed to a wide range of potential allergens, but adverse events seem infrequent. Patients with symptoms or signs of stomatitis, burning, tingling, cheilitis, oral lichenoid lesions, lip and facial swelling may relate their problems to dental treatment or to the use of dental products. Investigation for immediate type or delayed type hypersensitivity is indicated using patch testing, prick testing and blood tests for allergen-specific IgE. The main allergic reactions found in patients include contact allergy to metals, cosmetics, food additives, flavours and acrylates, and immediate type allergy to latex. Adverse reactions following the administration of local anaesthetics are seen in about 0.5% of cases, but immediate type allergy to these agents is rare. In dental staff, occupationally related problems are common and usually take the form of hand or facial dermatitis or respiratory disease. The most common allergic reactions in dental staff are immediate type allergy to latex, and contact allergy to rubber additives, fragrances, acrylates and formaldehyde. Occupational irritant problems causing hand dermatitis are probably more common in dental personnel than is dermatitis caused by contact allergy. Patch testing and tests for immediate type allergy are useful investigative methods in the investigation of patients who present with oral or facial symptoms possibly related to dental treatments and are also beneficial in dental personnel who present with hand or facial dermatitis or respiratory symptoms.