Download Free Medical Biocompatibility of Dental Materials PowerPoint Presentation

Biocompatibility of Dental Materials PowerPoint Presentation

DOWNLOAD MEDICAL POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

About This Presentation

Description : Check out this medical PowerPoint presentation titled "Biocompatibility of dental materials” by DR.RAMASHANKER.

This medical PowerPoint presentation is about dental materials, used to restore or replace missing or damaged teeth, and as such, must be biocompatible with the oral tissues. Biocompatibility refers to the ability of a material to perform its intended function without causing harm or adverse reactions in the surrounding tissues.

Dental materials can be classified into two main categories: direct restorative materials and indirect restorative materials. Direct restorative materials are used to directly restore teeth, while indirect restorative materials are used to fabricate restorations outside of the mouth, such as crowns, bridges, and dentures.

Biocompatibility of dental materials is assessed by various methods, including in vitro tests, animal studies, and clinical trials. In vitro tests include cytotoxicity assays, mutagenicity tests, and genotoxicity assays, among others. Animal studies involve implanting the material into animal tissues to observe the response of the tissues over time. Clinical trials involve placing the material in human patients and monitoring the response of the oral tissues.

Common direct restorative materials used in dentistry include amalgam, composite resin, glass ionomer cement, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Amalgam, which is a mixture of silver, tin, copper, and mercury, has been used for over a century and has a long track record of biocompatibility. Composite resin, which is made of a mixture of resin and filler particles, is also biocompatible and has become increasingly popular due to its esthetic properties. Glass ionomer cement and resin-modified glass ionomer cement are also biocompatible and are often used in pediatric dentistry and for small restorations.

Indirect restorative materials used in dentistry include metals, ceramics, and polymers. Metals such as gold, silver, and titanium have been used for decades and are well tolerated by the oral tissues. Ceramics, such as porcelain, are also biocompatible and have good esthetic properties. Polymers, such as acrylic resins, are used to fabricate dentures and are also biocompatible.

In conclusion, dental materials must be biocompatible with the oral tissues to ensure successful restoration or replacement of teeth. Various methods are used to assess biocompatibility, and dental materials have a long history of successful use in dentistry.

Tags : dental materials, direct restorative materials, indirect restorative materials, Dentistry, dental medicine, oral medicine, dental medicine PowerPoint presentation

Published on : Jun 20, 2023 | Views : 2062 | Downloads : 0

Shareable Url :

Embed Code :

Comment

Transcript

Slide 1-

BIOCOMPATIBILITY OF DENTAL MATERIALS DR.RAMASHANKER Associate professor Deptt. of prosthodontic
Slide 2-

CONTENTS Introduction History Definition Requirements Tests for evaluation Allergic responses to dental materials Materials considered for biocompatibility Physical factors affecting pulp health Summary References
Slide 3-

3 Introduction Biocompatibility :- interaction between body & material Body ↔ Material Placement of material creates interface : dynamic Interface activity depends on: - location of material - its duration in body - its properties - health of host
Slide 4-

History Mid 1800’ s dentists tried new materials for first time by directly putting them in patient’s mouth eg. Fox : fusible metal-bismuth, lead & tin-melted & poured in cavity preparation at appx.100o C G.V. Black tried his new ideas of restorative materials, like early amalgams in patients’ mouth
Slide 5-

Concept of protecting patients- early 1960’s Regulations & ethics introduced Organisations like FDA,ANSI,ADA and ISO .
Slide 6-

Definition Being harmonious with life & not having toxic or injurious effects on biologic function. (G.P.T. 8th edn.-2005) Ability of the material to elicit an appropriate biological response in a given application in the body (Kenneth J.A).
Slide 7-

7 Requirements for Dental Material Biocompatibility Should not be harmful to pulp & soft tissues Should not contain toxic diffusible substances Should not produce allergic responses Should not be carcinogenic
Slide 8-

8 Biomaterial Any substance, other than a drug, that can be used for any period as a part of a system that treats, augments, or replaces any tissue, organ or function of the body. (G.P.T. 8th edn.-2005)
Slide 9-

9 Classification of Biomaterials from perspective of Biocompatibility Those which contact soft tissues within the oral cavity eg. Acrylic resin Those which could affect health or vitality of pulp eg. Liner, bases Those which are used as root canal filling materials eg. Gutta percha
Slide 10-

10 Those which affect hard tissues of oral cavity eg. Implants Those used in dental laboratory eg. Nickel, chromium, cobalt Classification of Biomaterials from perspective of Biocompatibility
Slide 11-

11 ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM DENTAL MATERIALS Classical biological reactions to materials are : TOXICITY INFLAMMATION ALLERGY MUTAGENICITY
Slide 12-

12 TOXICITY Earliest response studied Earlier material containing LEAD posed a risk to patient due to toxic property of lead
Slide 13-

13 INFLAMMATION Involves activation of the host immune system Histologically it is characterized by edema of the tissue with infiltration of acute & chronic inflammatory cells
Slide 14-

14
Slide 15-

ALLERGY Most common response that occurs when the body recognizes a material as foreign Reactions involves all dimensions of immune system An allergic reaction results histologically in an inflammatory response that can be difficult to differentiate between non allergic inflammation or low grade toxicity .
Slide 16-

16 Allergy
Slide 17-

Allergic Responses to Dental Materials Allergic Contact Dermatitis Allergic Contact Stomatitis Allergy to Latex products
Slide 18-

18 Allergic Contact Dermatitis Most common occupational disease Susceptibility & prior sensitization necessary Dose independent
Slide 19-

19 Allergic Contact Dermatitis Usually occurs where body surface makes direct contact with allergen. eg. Monomers of bonding agent- distal part of fingers & palmer aspect of fingertips Acrylic component of dental cements, nickel & resin monomers-allergic contact sensitizers.
Slide 20-

20 Patch Test Most definitive diagnostic test Suspected allergen applied to skin to produce small area of allergic contact dermatitis After 48 to 96 hrs hyperemia, edema, vesicle formation & itching Positive reaction (Slavin and Ducomb,1989)
Slide 21-

21 Allergic Contact Stomatitis Most common adverse reaction to Dental Materials A) Local/contact type lesions B) Systemic/distant lesions
Slide 22-

22 Common allergens :- chromium, cobalt, mercury, eugenol, components of resin based materials, & formaldehyde Mouthwashes, dentifrices, lozenges, & cough drops cause burning, swelling & ulceration of oral tissues. Lichenoid reactions :- Long-term effect in oral mucous membrane adjacent amalgam & composite resins. (Bratel and Johntell,1994) Allergic Contact Stomatitis
Slide 23-

23 Allergy to Latex Products Polyether component-main causative agent …March,1988 Dermatitis of hand (eczema) most common adverse reaction Localized rashes & swelling to wheezing & anaphylaxis
Slide 24-

24 Repeated exposure & duration plays important role. Most serious systemic reactions occur when gloves or rubber dam contact mucous membrane - generalized angioneurotic edema, chest pain, rash on neck or chest region and respiratory distress …Blinkhorn and Leggate,1984
Slide 25-

25 Prevention: Use Vinyl gloves or gloves made of other synthetic polymer gloves:- Polythene gloves. Powder free gloves. Nitrile gloves.
Slide 26-

MUTAGENIC REACTIONS Mutagenicity results when the components of the material alter the base pair sequences of the DNA in cells Dental materials or components such as nickel, copper, beryllium, some components of root canal sealers & resin based materials are mutagens
Slide 27-

27 KEY PRINCIPLES THAT DETERMINE ADVERSE EFFECTS Two key factors have paramount importance : Metal Corrosion or Metal degradation Surface Characterstics
Slide 28-

28 CORROSION Biocompatibility depends on degradation process Biological response of corrosion products depends on: Amount Composition Form Location in tissues
Slide 29-

29 CORROSION Biological environment in contact also determines the corrosion property for eg: salivary esterases accelerate breakdown of dental resins Ingestion of acidic substances may alter corrosion of alloys or ceramics
Slide 30-

30 SURAFCE CHARATERISTICS Surface different from the Interior region For eg: casting alloy sealant EFFECTS OF SURFACE : Ti alloys promote osseointegration Rough surface promotes corrosion
Slide 31-

31 Tests for Evaluation of Biocompatibility Aim To eliminate any potential harm or damage to oral or maxillofacial tissues from a product or any component of a product To modify or control the use by manufacturer & operator to prevent cytotoxicity.
Slide 32-

32 Tests for Evaluation of Biocompatibility Biocompatibility tests are classified on three levels (tiers) :- Group I : Primary tests Group II : Secondary tests Group III : Usage tests
Slide 33-

33 Group I : Primary Tests Advantages :- in vitro test, done in controlled experimental condition Most rapid, economical & easily standardized Large scale screening Disadvantages :- Lack of relevance to in vivo use of material Lack of immune, inflammatory & circulatory system
Slide 34-

Cytotoxicity Tests Material in a fresh or cured state → placed directly on tissue culture cells or on membranes overlying them. e.g.. Agar (Agar overlay technique) Barriers like dentin disks
Slide 35-

Genotoxicity Tests Determines carcinogenic/mutagenic potential Carried out on mammalian or non-mammalian cells, bacteria, yeasts, or fungi. Evaluates gene mutations, changes in chromosomal structure & other DNA or genetic changes caused by dental materials.
Slide 36-

Genotoxicity Tests Ames Test :- -Material is tested with mutant histidine dependant bacteria -Agent is added to culture medium consisting salmonella typhimurium mutant gene which cannot produce histidine -If carcinogenic :- salmonella species reversed to original state, i.e.... start producing histidine again
Slide 37-

Group II : Secondary Tests Advantages :- Intact biologic system to respond to a material Provide important bridge between in vitro environment & clinical use of material Disadvantages :- More expensive & difficult to control Time consuming Ethical concerns
Slide 38-

Group II : Secondary Tests 1. Systemic toxicity test :- Material administered to test animals e.g.. Rats- orally or i.v. If > 50% animals survive material is safe
Slide 39-

Group II : Secondary Tests 2. Skin irritation test :- Irritation is inflammation without intervention of antibody or immune system. Material held in contact with shaved skin of rats for 24 to 90 days Erythema & edema are examined & confirmed.
Slide 40-

Group II : Secondary Tests 3. Skin Sensitization test :- Sensitization is inflammatory response requiring participation of an antibody system specific for material allergen. Done similar to irritation tests
Slide 41-

Group II : Secondary Tests 4. Inhalation toxicity test :- Performed on rats, rabbits or guinea pigs in exposure chamber with aerosol preparations by releasing spray material around head & upper trunk of animals. Death within 2 to 3 min. very toxic No death safe for human application
Slide 42-

Group II : Secondary Tests 5. Implantation test :- Only used for testing implants & endodontic materials. Material placed subcutaneously,intramuscularly, or as a bone implant at lateral cortex of femur or tibia or both Histopathological examination has to be done Observation period may be upto 1 year.
Slide 43-

IMPLANTATION TEST
Slide 44-

44 Group III : Usage Tests Advantage :- Material placed in an environment clinically relevant to its use in clinical practice Disadvantages :- Extremely complex & difficult to perform Exceptionally expensive & very time consuming Ethical concerns In animals : usage tests In humans : clinical trials
Slide 45-

Classical progression of biocompatibility tests
Slide 46-

Newer schemes for progression of biocompatibility tests
Slide 47-

VARIOUS DENTAL MATERIALS CONSIDERED FOR BIOCOMPATIBILITY
Slide 48-

Metals : Amalgam & mercury Nickel Beryllium Gold Resins : Acrylic Resins Chemically cured composite resins Light cured composite resins
Slide 49-

Cements : Silicate cement Zinc Phosphate cement Glass ionomer cement Zinc oxide Eugenol cement Miscellaneous : Impression materials Implant materials
Slide 50-

Amalgam & Mercury Mercury itself has no effect on pulp Pulp response related to condensation pressure Rate of diffusion into enamel & dentin-inversely related to degree of mineralization.
Slide 51-

Mercury Elemental mercury, Inorganic ion & Methyl mercury Methyl mercury :-formed by biologic action of elemental mercury; Absorbed 100% in gut; Most toxic Elemental mercury absorbed less than 0.01% 65% to 85% mercury vapor that is inhaled is retained in body
Slide 52-

Mercury Levels in Blood Subjects with amalgam restoration 0.7ng/mL Subjects without amalgam restoration 0.3ng/mL Lowest level at which earliest 35ng/mL non-specific symptoms occur
Slide 53-

Mercury Hazard to Dental Personnel Via inhalation & skin contact (allergic contact dermatitis) Accidental spillage Handling with bare fingers Improper storage Improper retrieval of spilled mercury or waste amalgam Faulty equipment
Slide 54-

Acute mercury poisoning :- Rare; stomatitis & diarrhoea Chronic mercury poisoning :- Weakness, fatigue, anorexia, wt. loss, insomnia, irritability, shyness, dizziness & tremors in extremities. Methyl mercury poisoning :- Paresthesia of extremities, lips & tongue; ataxia (gait disturbance), & concentric constriction of visual fields (Tunnel Vision)
Slide 55-

Recommendations in Mercury Hygiene Store in unbreakable tightly sealed containers Clean-up spilled mercury immediately Do not handle with bare hands Salvage all amalgam scrap & store it under water Use water spray & suction while grinding Do not use ultrasonic condensers Periodic mercury vapor level determination in clinic Alert health personnel about hazards of mercury Use of rubber dam Provide adequate ventilation
Slide 56-

Nickel Most common cause of allergic dermatitis Female : Male :: 10 : 1 Intraorally : little chance of allergy Nasal & sinus cancer among nickel refinery workers due to nickel carbonyl
Slide 57-

Beryllium Component of base metal alloys Highest risk to dental technicians during melting & trimming of alloy Berylliosis : inflammatory lung disease due to inhalation of beryllium dust or fumes
Slide 58-

Beryllium Prevention : Confirm allergy by Patch test Avoid base metal restorations in patients with known allergy Good ventilation & exhaust
Slide 59-

ppt slide no 59 content not found
Slide 60-

Gold Pure gold is inert Allergy to gold is very rare (1 in 1 million)
Slide 61-

Cements
Slide 62-

Acrylic Resin Cause allergic reactions (denture stomatitis) when used as denture base material or provisional fixed partial denture resin Highest risk for dental professionals due to frequent exposure to unpolymerized monomer
Slide 63-

Chemically Cured Resin Composites Require use of matrix pressure to enhance adaptation to cavity walls : Potential pulp irritant Chronic pulpitis : persists for indefinite period, after 2 to 3 weeks, develop massive pulp lesion Thin coating of hard setting Ca(OH)2 cement recommended for deep cavities
Slide 64-

Light-Cured Resin Composites Visible light cured systems : greater depth of cure, shorter curing time, less porosity & more wear-resistant restorations than UV light cured systems less pulp response Use twice the recommended time exposure to light Conservative cavity preparation & incremental curing; no need for matrices & pressure, to gain adaptation less toxicity to pulp
Slide 65-

Impression Materials Irreversible hydrocolloids :- Inhaling fine airborne particles (dust) can cause silicosis & pulmonary hypersensitivity. Dustless/Dustfree alginate is preferred Elastomers :- Cellular toxicity levels Polyether > Addition Silicone > Polysulphide
Slide 66-

Implant Materials Commercially pure Titanium & its alloys are the most biocompatible restorative materials Bio-glass ceramics used as implant materials also exhibit good biocompatibility
Slide 67-

Implant Materials Osseointegration :- Materials have very low degradation rates, & tend to form surface oxides that promote bony approximation within 100Ao space eg. Titanium, tantalum, several forms of ceramics Biointegration :- Materials undergo degradation to promote bone formation without any intervening space eg. Bio-glass ceramics
Slide 68-

PHYSICAL FACTORS AFFECTING PULP HEALTH
Slide 69-

Microleakage Free penetration of fluids, micro-organisms & oral debris along interface between restoration & tooth, progressing down the walls of cavity preparation It can result in :- Secondary/Recurrent caries acute/chronic pulpitis, pulp abscess, etc. Staining or discoloration Sensitivity due to continuing Pulpal irritation
Slide 70-

Nanoleakage vs Microleakage
Slide 71-

Prevention:- Use bonding/adhesive techniques for better adaptation of restoration to tooth surface Regular monitoring of restoration Use cavity varnish below amalgam restoration (leakage space filled by corrosion products thereby sealing cavity : but requires much time)
Slide 72-

Thermal Changes Temperature fluctuations in oral cavity may crack restorative material or produce undesirable dimensional changes Microleakage Thermal conductivity & coefficient of thermal expansion Metals are good conductors of heat, causing sensitivity with large metallic restorations eg. Amalgam or gold inlays Provide suitable base
Slide 73-

Galvanism Flow of current when two dissimilar metallic restorations oppose each other in oral cavity Due to different electromotive potentials of opposing metals Saliva acts as electrolyte Contact Short-circuit current flows through pulp Pain & Discomfort
Slide 74-

Current falls off if fillings are maintained in contact due to polarization of cell Pain perception depends on patient sensitivity rather than magnitude of current Magnitude of current depends on composition & surface area of metals eg. Alloy of stainless steel develop higher current density than gold or cobalt-chromium alloys when in contact with amalgam Galvanism
Slide 75-

Galvanism As size of cathode (eg. gold alloy) increase relative to anode (eg. Amalgam), current density increases Larger cathode enhances corrosion of smaller anode Current density in non-gamma2 containing amalgam is less than gamma2 containing amalgam Prevention :- Placement of insulating base Applying varnish on cavity walls Proper planning of restoration
Slide 76-

Estrogenicity Ability of a chemical to act in the body in a manner similar to that of an estrogen. Bisphenol A –xenoestrogen may act on estrogenic receptors in cells. E-screen assay –relies on growth response of breast cancer cells that are estrogen sensitive .
Slide 77-

Summary Clinical Guidelines for selecting biocompatible materials : Define the use of material Define how the material has been tested Think in terms of Risk & Benefit
Slide 78-

Conclusion Benefits Risks Clinical Judgement
Slide 79-

References:- 1) Philips’ Science of Dental Materials - Kenneth J. Anusavice 2) Dental Material Sciences - Combe 3) Dental Materials – Properties & Manipulation - Craig 4) Color Atlas of Oral Pathology – 4th Edition - Robinson & Miller 5) Essentials of Oral Pathology & Oral Medicine - Cawson & Odell
Slide 80-

Thank You For a Patient Listening