Orthodontic adhesives induce human gingival fibroblast toxicity and inflammation

Comparative In Vitro Biocompatibility Study of the Two Orthodontic Bonding Materials of Different Types

In the present study, the in vitro biocompatibility and cell response to two commonly used orthodontic bonding materials of different types, one self-curing and one light-curing, were examined and compared in indirect and direct cell culture systems. The study was conducted on fibroblasts and macrophages as in vitro models to study the biocompatibility of dental materials. Differences were found between the light- and self-curing material in cytotoxicity and effects on fibroblasts' proliferation in indirect cell culture systems as well as in macrophages response in vitro in both direct and indirect cell culture systems. Based on the obtained results, we can conclude that the self-curing material is generally more cytotoxic for fibroblasts compared to the light-curing, while macrophages' response to these materials was dependent on the macrophages' state and differed between the examined materials. This indicates that more attention should be paid when choosing and applying these materials in practice due to their toxicity to cells. Prior to their use, all aspects should be considered regarding the patient's conditions, associated problems, microenvironment in the oral cavity, etc. Further studies on in vivo models should be conducted to fully understand the potential long-term effects of the use of mentioned materials in orthodontics.

Monomer release from orthodontic retentions: An in vitro study

INTRODUCTION

The adhesives used to bond orthodontic retentions are low-loaded composite resins with a resinous matrix containing bisphenol A diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate synthesized from bisphenol A (BPA), fluidizers such as triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) and hydrophilic polymers such as hydroxyethylmethacrylate. BPA disrupts the endocrine balance, and TEGDMA has high risks for human health: eg, allergies and cytotoxicity. The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the release of monomers from orthodontic bonded retentions.

METHODS

A reproducible model of bonded retentions was carried out using calibrated molds. We analyzed the release of monomers by gas phase chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

This model allowed us to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the in-vitro release of monomers from orthodontic adhesives. The quantitative and qualitative analyses showed no BPA release above the 0.02 ppm detection limit. A greater release of TEGDMA was observed with Transbond LR (31.7 μg/mL) than with Transbond XT (13.12 μg/mL) (both, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Other toxic components (iodobenzene, iodobiphenyl, triphenyl stibine, and so on) were also identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Toxic and carcinogenic molecules not mentioned in the material safety data sheets were identified.

Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents

Objective:

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two methods of visual magnification (operating microscope and light head magnifying glass) for removal of composite flash around orthodontic metal brackets.

Material and Methods:

Brackets were bonded in the center of the clinical crown of sixty well-preserved human premolars. Half of the sample was bonded with conventional Transbond XT (3M Unitek TM, USA), whereas the other half was bonded with Transbond TM Plus Color Change (3M Unitek TM, USA). For each type of composite, the choice of method to remove the flash was determined by randomly distributing the teeth into the following subgroups: A (removal by naked eye, n = 10), B (removal with the aid of light head magnifying glass, under 4x magnification, n = 10), and C (removal with the aid of an operating microscope, under 40x magnification, n = 10). Brackets were debonded and teeth taken to a scanning electron microscope (SS-x-550, Shimadzu, Japan) for visualization of their buccal surface. Quantification of composite flash was performed with Image Pro Plus software, and values were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s post-hoc test at 5% significance level.

Results:

Removal of pigmented orthodontic adhesive with the aid of light head magnifying glass proved, in general, to be advantageous in comparison to all other methods.

Conclusion:

There was no advantage in using Transbond TM Plus Color Change alone. Further studies are necessary to draw a more definitive conclusion in regards to the benefits of using an operating microscope.