10.1186/2194-0517-2-9

Infrared spectroscopic analysis of restorative composite materials' surfaces and their saline extracts

Show Details XML HTML PDF
  • Reem Ajaj*1,
  • Robert Baier2,
  • Jude Fabiano3,
  • Peter Bush3,
  1. Section of Biomaterials, Division of Conservative Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 22254, SA Department of Oral Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Biomaterials, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14214, US
  2. Department of Oral Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Biomaterials, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14214, US
  3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, 14214, US
Cover Image

Published in Issue 2013-03-18

How to Cite

Ajaj, R., Baier, R., Fabiano, J., & Bush, P. (2013). Infrared spectroscopic analysis of restorative composite materials’ surfaces and their saline extracts. Progress in Biomaterials, 2(1 (December 2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/2194-0517-2-9
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Abstract This study aims at finding out if multiple attenuated internal reflection-infrared (MAIR-IR) spectroscopic analysis can be used as a tool to differentiate commercial resin composite brands and to find out if different resin composites will have different abilities of leaching materials that are cytotoxic to human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) Tooth-colored resin fillings have become increasingly popular as restorative materials, which make it important to differentiate the commercial brands for forensic and biological purposes. Fourteen resin composite brands were used in the study. MAIR-IR spectroscopic analysis was used for surface characterization of the organic and inorganic parts of the resin composite samples which were studied as is and after 2 weeks of saline incubation. IR spectroscopy was also done on the saline extracts to find out if different resin composite materials would have different leaching abilities. The saline extracts were also used for the viability testing of HGF cell cultures. One-way analysis of variance test statistics was used to analyze the results. It was found that the resin composite brands have different spectra after saline soaking. It was also found that these resin composite brands possess different leaching abilities with regard to the amount and type of materials and different cytotoxic effects, which were found to be threshold dependent, meaning there is a critical or threshold value of leaching material at or above which the toxic effect will be significant and below which there is no toxic effect. Therefore, IR spectroscopy might be considered as a useful tool for dental resin composite characterization. However, more oral simulating environmental testing methods, different surface characterization methods, and more cell viability testing methods and assays must be considered for more specific results which relate more to the behavior of these dental resin composites in the oral environment.

Keywords

  • Multiple attenuated internal reflection-infrared,
  • Resin composite,
  • Human gingival fibroblasts,
  • Forensic,
  • Cytotoxic
HTML PDF

References

  1. USAF Dental Evaluation and Consultation Service, Synopsis of Restorative Resin Composite Systems (Project 05–06) (August/2005)
  2. Accessed April 2013
  3. http://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/4601291/synopsis-of-restorative-resin-composite-systems-air-force-
  4. Al-Sabek et al. (2005) Preferential attachment of human gingival fibroblasts to the resin ionomer Geristore 31(3) (pp. 205-208) https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000137650.61607.25
  5. Unknown (2012)
  6. Bush et al. (2006) Detection and classification of composite resins in incinerated teeth for forensic purposes 51(3) (pp. 636-642) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00121.x
  7. Bush et al. (2007) Identification through X-ray fluorescence analysis of dental restorative resin materials: a comprehensive study of noncremated, cremated, and processed-cremated individuals 52(1) (pp. 157-165) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00308.x
  8. Bush et al. (2007) The role of dental materials in situations involving high temperatures: a review article in forensic odontology 127(2) (pp. 97-103)
  9. Bush et al. (2008) Analytical survey of restorative resins by SEM/EDS and XRF: databases for forensic purposes 53(2) (pp. 419-425) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00654.x
  10. Galan et al. (2004) Wettability of some packable resin-based composites. An in vitro study 12(3) (pp. 121-124)
  11. Hanks et al. (1996) In vitro models of biocompatibility: a review 12(3) (pp. 186-193) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(96)80020-0
  12. Hermanson et al. (2008) Ultraviolet illumination as an adjunctive aid in dental inspection 53(2) (pp. 408-411) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00657.x
  13. Hosoda et al. (1990) SEM and elemental analysis of composite resins 64(6) (pp. 669-676) https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90293-L
  14. Hou and Yaeger (1993) Cloning and characterization of human gingival and periodontal ligament fibroblasts 64(12) (pp. 1209-1218) https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1993.64.12.1209
  15. Huang et al. (2002) Resinous perforation-repair materials inhibit the growth, attachment, and proliferation of human gingival fibroblasts 28(4) (pp. 291-294) https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200204000-00008
  16. Unknown (2012) Trypsin
  17. Issa et al. (2004) Resin composite monomers alter MTT and LDH activity of human gingival fibroblasts in vitro 20(1) (pp. 12-20) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00053-8
  18. Janke et al. (2003) TEGDMA causes apoptosis in primary human gingival fibroblasts 82(10) (pp. 814-818) https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910308201010
  19. Jeffrey et al. (2005) Portable generator-based XRF instrument for non-destructive analysis at crime scenes (pp. 816-819) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2005.07.137
  20. Koin et al. (2008) Analysis of the degradation of a model dental composite 87(7) (pp. 661-665) https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910808700712
  21. Lai et al. (2004) Cytotoxic effects of dental resin liquids on primary gingival fibroblasts and periodontal ligament cells in vitro 31(12) (pp. 1165-1172) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01355.x
  22. Lee et al. (1995) Effect of food and oral simulating fluids on structure of adhesive composite systems 23(1) (pp. 27-35) https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(95)90657-4
  23. Lee et al. (1995) Detection of leached moieties from dental composites in fluids simulating food and saliva 11(6) (pp. 348-353) https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(95)80033-6
  24. Lee et al. (1998) Leached components from dental composites in oral simulating fluids and the resultant composite strengths 25(8) (pp. 575-588) https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00284.x
  25. Lewis et al. (1999) Identification and characterization of estrogen-like components in commercial resin-based dental restorative materials 3(3) (pp. 107-113) https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840050087
  26. Moharamzadeh et al. (2007) Cytotoxicity of resin monomers on human gingival fibroblasts and HaCaT keratinocytes 23(1) (pp. 40-44) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.039
  27. Pretty et al. (2002) The use of quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) to identify composite restorations in forensic examinations 47(4) (pp. 831-836) https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS15468J
  28. Sailynoja et al. (2004) Heat curing of UTMA-based hybrid resin: effects on the degree of conversion and cytotoxicity 92(1) (pp. 27-35) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-004-0037-2
  29. Schmalz et al. (1999) Bisphenol-A content of resin monomers and related degradation products 3(3) (pp. 114-119) https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840050088
  30. Schweikl et al. (2006) Genetic and cellular toxicology of dental resin monomers 85(10) (pp. 870-877) https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910608501001
  31. Smith (1998) CRC Press
  32. Soderholm (1981) Degradation of glass filler in experimental composites 60(11) (pp. 1867-1875) https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345810600110701
  33. Soderholm (1983) Leaking of fillers in dental composites 62(2) (pp. 126-130) https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345830620020801
  34. Soderholm et al. (1984) Hydrolytic degradation of dental composites 63(10) (pp. 1248-1254) https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345840630101701
  35. Soderholm (1990) Filler leachability during water storage of six composite materials 98(1) (pp. 82-88)
  36. Theilig et al. (2000) Effects of BisGMA and TEGDMA on proliferation, migration, and tenascin expression of human fibroblasts and keratinocytes 53(6) (pp. 632-639) https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(2000)53:6<632::AID-JBM3>3.0.CO;2-J
  37. Thompson et al. (1982) Leaching of unpolymerized materials from orthodontic bonding resin 61(8) (pp. 989-992) https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345820610081501
  38. Tuncel et al. (2006) Cytotoxicity evaluation of two different composites with/without fibers and one nanohybrid composite 25(2) (pp. 267-271) https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.25.267
  39. Ubelaker et al. (2002) The use of SEM/EDS analysis to distinguish dental and osseus tissue from other materials 47(5) (pp. 940-943) https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS15518J
  40. Vankerckhoven et al. (1982) Unreacted methacrylate groups on the surfaces of composite resins 61(6) (pp. 791-795) https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345820610062801
  41. Wataha et al. (1999) In vitro cytotoxicity of resin-containing restorative materials after aging in artificial saliva 3(3) (pp. 144-149) https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840050093
  42. Willershausen et al. (1999) Influence of resin-based restoration materials on cytotoxicity in gingival fibroblasts 4(4) (pp. 149-155)
  43. Unknown (2012)