In vitro cytotoxicity assessment of the 3D printed polymer based epoxy resin intended for use in dentistry

Tatjana Puškar; Branka Trifković; Daniela Djurović Koprivica; Vesna Kojić; Ana Jevremović; Siniša Mirković; Dominic Eggbeer

doi:10.2298/VSP170721127P

Tatjana Puškar University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Dentistry, Novi Sad, Serbia
Branka Trifković University of Belgrade, Faculty of Dentistry, Clinic for Prosthodontics, Belgrade, Serbia
Daniela Djurović Koprivica University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Dentistry, Novi Sad, Serbia
Vesna Kojić University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Oncology Institute of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
Ana Jevremović University Business Academy in Novi Sad, Faculty of Dentistry, Pančevo, Serbia
Siniša Mirković University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Dentistry, Novi Sad, Serbia
Dominic Eggbeer Cardiff Metropolitan University, National Centre for Product Design and Development Research, Cardiff, United Kingdom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP170721127P

Keywords: cell culture techniques;, dental materials;, epoxy resin;, material testing;, printing, three-dimensional.

Abstract

Background/Aim. There is limited published evidence on the cytotoxicity of 3D printed polymer materials for dentistry applications, despite that they are now widely used in medicine. Stereolithography (SLA) is one of the foremost 3D processes used in 3D printing, yet there are only a small number of resin materials reported to be suitable for medical applications. The aim of this study was to investigate, in vitro, the cytotoxic effect of the 3D printed resin in order to establish the suitability for its usage in dentistry and related medical applications such as surgical dental guides, occlusal splits and orthodontic devices. Methods. To examine the cytotoxicity of the 3D printed polymer-based epoxy resin, Accura^® ClearVue™ (3D-Systems, USA), two cell cultures were used: mouse fibroblasts L929, and human lung fibroblasts MRC-5. The cell viability was determined by the Mosmann's colorimetric (MTT) test and the agar diffusion test (ADT). Results. Direct contact of the tested material with the ADT test showed nontoxic effects of tested material in any cell culture. The tested material showed no cytotoxic effect after 3 days of extraction of the eluate by the MTT, but mild cytotoxic effect after 5, 7 and 21 days on both cell lines. The cytotoxicity increased with increasing the time of the eluate extraction. Conclusion. The 3D printed polymer-based epoxy resin, Accura^® ClearVue™ (3D-Systems, USA) is considered appropriate for making surgical dental implant guides according to the cytotoxic behavior. According to the mild level of cytotoxicity after the longer extraction periods, there is a need for further evaluation of biocompatibility for its application for the occlusal splints and orthodontic devices.

References

Mahamood S, Khader MA, Ali H. Applications of 3D Printing in Orthodontics: A Review. Int J Sci Stud 2016; 3(11): 267-70.

Van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Ma-ter 2012; 28(1): 3–12.

Bens TA, Tille C, Bermes G, Emons M, Seitz H. Novel, bio-compati¬ble polyether(meth)acrylate-based formulations for stereolithography. e-Polymers 2005; 5(1): 377–86.

Shie MY, Chang WC, Wei LJ, Huang YH, Chen CH, Shih CT, et al. 3D Printing of Cytocompatible Water-Based Light-Cured Polyurethane with Hyaluronic Acid for Cartilage Tissue Engi-neering Applications. Materials (Basel) 2017; 10(2): pii: E136.

Wang X, Jiang M, Zhou Z, Gou J, Hui D. 3D printing of poly-mer matrix composites: A review and prospective. Composites Part B Eng 2017; 110: 442–58.

Puskar T, Jevremovic D, Williams RJ, Eggbeer D, Vukelic Dj, Bu-dak I. A Comparative Analysis of the Corrosive Effect of Ar-tificial Saliva of Variable pH on DMLS and Cast Co-Cr-Mo Dental Alloy. Materials 2014; 7(9): 6486–501.

Kim SH, Kang SM, Choi YS, Kook YA, Chung KR, Huang JC. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of mini-im-plants after placement: Is root proximity a major risk factor for failure? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138(3): 264–76.

Bornstein MM, Scarfe WC, Vaughn VM, Jacobs R. Cone beam com¬puted tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic re-view focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 Suppl: 55–77.

Bae MJ, Kim JY, Park JT, Cha JY, Kim HJ, Yu HS, et al. Accu-racy of miniscrew surgical guides assessed from cone-beam computed tomography and digital models. Am J Orthod Den-tofacial Orthop 2013; 143(6): 893–901.

Ramasamy M, Giri, Raja R, Subramonian, Karthik, Naren-drakumar R. Implant surgical guides: From the past to the pre-sent. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2013; 5(Suppl 1): S98–S102.

Widmann G, Bale RJ. Accuracy in computer-aided implant sur-gery-a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21(2): 305–13.

Avrampou M, Mericske-Stern R, Blatz MB, Katsoulis J. Virtual im¬plant planning in the edentulous maxilla: criteria for deci-sion making of prosthesis design. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24 Suppl A100: 152–9.

Stumpel LJ. Flexible thermoplastic resin to add retention to tooth-supported stereolithographic surgical guides. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114(4): 479–81.

Nickenig HJ, Eitner S, Rothamel D, Wichmann M, Zöller JE. Pos-si¬bilities and limitations of implant placement by virtual plan-ning data and surgical guide templates. Int J Comput Dent 2012; 15(1): 9–21. (English, German)

Pozzi A, Polizzi G, Moy PK. Guided surgery with tooth-sup-ported templates for single missing teeth: A critical review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2016; 9 Suppl 1: S135–53.

Sarment DP, Sukovic P, Clinthorne N. Accuracy of implant placement with a stereolithographic surgical guide. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18(4): 571–7.

Kwon JS, Piao YZ, Cho SA, Yang SY, Kim JH, An S, et al. Bio-compatibility Evaluation of Dental Luting Cements Using Cy-tokine Released from Human Oral Fibroblasts and Kerati-nocytes. Materials (Basel) 2015; 8(11): 7269–77.

Bettencourt AF, Neves CB, de Almeida MS, Pinheiro LM, Oliveira SA, Lopes LP, et al. Biodegradation of acrylic based resins: A review. Dent Mater 2010; 26(5): e171–80.

Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D. Biocompatibility of dental ma-terials. 1st ed. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag GmbH; 2009.

International Standard ISO 10993 - Part 5 and Part 12: 2009: Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices and Tests for in vitro Cytotoxicity. International Organization For Standardi-zation; 2009.

International Standard ISO 7405: 2008. Dentistry - Preclini-cal evaluation of biocompatibility of medical devices used in dentistry - Test methods for dental materials. International Organization for Standardization; 2008.

Weijia LI, Zhou J, Yuyin XU. Study of the in vitro cytotoxicity testing of medical devices. Biomed Rep 2015; 3(5): 617–20.

www.3Dsystems.com. Available online:

https://www.3Dsystems.com/materials/accurar-clearvue

[accessed on 2016 September 12].

O'Malley FL, Millward H, Eggbeer D, Williams R, Cooper R. The use of adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence for assessing the cleanliness of additive-manufacturing materials used in medical applications. Additive Manufacturing 2016; 9: 25–9.

Vojdani M, Sattari M, Khajehoseini Sh, Farzin M. Cytotoxicity of Resin-Based Cleansers: An In Vitro Study. Iran Red Cres-cent Med J 2010; 12(2): 152–62.

Kostoryz LE, Tong YP, Chappelow CC, Eick DJ, Glaros GA, Yourtee MD. In vitro cytotoxicity of solid epoxy-based dental resins and their components. Dent Mater 1999; 15(5): 363–73.

Mosmann T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods 1983; 65(1–2): 55–63.

Mendes АP, Barceleiro MO, dos Reis RS, Bonato LL, Dias KR. Changes in surface roughness and color stability of two com-posites caused by different bleaching agents. Braz Dent J 2012; 23(6): 659–66.

Brackett MG, Lockwood PE, Messer RL, Lewis JB, Bouillaguet S, Wataha JC. In vitro cytotoxic response to lithium disilicate dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2008; 24(4): 450–6.

Michelsen V, Moe G, Strøm M, Jensen E, Lygre H. Quantitative analysis of TEGDMA and HEMA eluted into saliva from two dental composites by use of GC/MS and tailor-made internal standards. Dent Mater 2008; 24(6): 724–31.

Stephens B, Azimi P, El Orch Z, Ramos T. Ultrafine particle emissions from desktop 3D printers. Atmos Environ 2013; 79: 334−9.

Wadajkar A, Chul A, Nguyen K, Qiang Z, Takashi K. In Vitro Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Four Vital Pulp Therapy Materials on L929 Fibroblasts. ISRN Dentistry 2014; (2014): ID 191068.

Salehi S, Gwinner F, Mitchell JC, Pfeifer C, Ferracane JL. Cyto-toxicity of resin composites containing bioactive glass fillers. Dent Mater 2015; 31(2): 195–203.

Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KW. Orthodontics: Current principles and techniques. 4th ed. St Louis: Elsevier; 2005.

Inoue Y, Ikuta, K. Detoxification of the Photocurable Polymer by Heat Treatment for Microstereolithography. Procedia CIRP 2013; 5: 115−8.

Popov V, Evseev A, Ivanov A, Roginski V, Volozhin A, Howdle S. Laser stereolithography and supercritical fluid processing for custom-designed implant fabrication. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2004; 15: 123−8.

Oskui SM, Diamante G, Liao Ch, Shi W, Gan J, Schlenk D, et al. Assessing and Reducing the Toxicity of 3D-Printed Parts. En-viron Sci Technol Lett 2016; 3(1): 1–6.

MacDonald NP, Zhu F, Hall CJ, Reboud J, Crosier PS, Patton EE, et al. Assessment of biocompatibility of 3D printed photopol-ymers using zebrafish embryo toxicity assays. Lab Chip 2016; 16(2): 291–7.