Denture base resins biocompatibility testing in vivo

Milena M Kostić; Stevo Najman; Dragan Mihailović; Nebojša Krunić; Nikola Gligorijević; Jasmina Gligorijević; Marko Igić; Nikola Marinković

doi:10.2298/VSP170112045K

Milena M Kostić University in Niš, Medical Faculty, Clinic of Dentistry, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Niš, Kragujevac
Stevo Najman University of Niš, Medical Faculty, Institute of Biology and Human Genetics, Niš, Serbia
Dragan Mihailović University of Niš, Medical Faculty, Institute of Pathology, Niš, Serbia
Nebojša Krunić University of Niš, Medical Faculty, Clinic of Dentistry, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Niš, Serbia
Nikola Gligorijević University of Niš, Medical Faculty, Clinic of Dentistry, Department of Dentistry, Niš, Serbia
Jasmina Gligorijević University of Niš, Medical Faculty, Clinic of Dentistry, Institute of Pathology, Niš, Serbia
Marko Igić University of Niš, Medical Faculty, Clinic of Dentistry, Department of Dentistry, Niš, Serbia
Nikola Marinković Military Medical Academy, Clinic of Dentistry, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP170112045K

Keywords: dentures;, acrylates;, biocompatible materials;, rats.

Abstract

Background/Aim. The wearing of acrylic dentures is the cause of the inflammatory reaction of the oral mucosa. The aim of this study was to investigate the response of rat tissues to subcutaneous and intramuscular implantation of different acrylic samples, by histopathological analysis of the tissue. Methods. The study included two samples of hard and three samples of soft acrylic resins (heat and cold polymerized), that were subcutaneously and intramuscularly implanted in rats tissues. Implantation tests were designed to test the biological response of the surrounding tissue to the tested materials after their application for the period of two weeks and the period of four months. Results. After two weeks, regardless of the type of implantation, histopathological analysis showed an acute inflammatory response. There was an intense hyperplasia of inflammatory cells, multiplication of connective tissue as well as formation of many new blood vessels. The highest level of inflammatory changes was observed after the application of cold-polymerized resins. A lower intensity of inflammation in the case of heat polymerised resin was the result of its more complete polymerization. After the second observation period, fibrotic capsules were formed around the implanted samples indicating a chronic course of the inflammatory process. Less visible signs of inflammation and chronicity of the processes indicate that with time, i.e. with the length of the observation period, reduces inflammation. Conclusion. The subcutaneous and intramuscular implantation of acrylic resins material samples led to inflammatory response whose intensity was decreased over time. Heat polymerized resin was a biologically more acceptable in comparison to the cold polymerized acrylates.

References

REFRENCES

Kallus T. Enhanced tissue response to denture base polymers in formaldehyde-sensitized guinea pigs. J Prostet Dent 1984; 52(2): 292–9.

Kallus T. Evaluation of the toxicity of denture base polymers af¬ter subcutaneous implantation in guinea pigs. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 52(1): 126–34.

Sipahi C, Ozen J, Ural A, Dalkiz M, Beydemir B. The effect of two fibre impregnation methods on the cytotoxicity of a glass and carbon fibre-reinforced acrylic resin denture base material on oral epithelial cells and fibroblasts. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33(9): 666–73.

Le Sueur BW, Yiannias JA. Contact stomatitis. Dermatol Clin 2003; 21(1): 105–14.

Gawkrodger DJ. Investigation of reactions to dental materials. Br J Dermatol 2005; 153(3): 479–85.

Ali A, Bates JF, Reynolds AJ, Walker DM. The burning mouth sensation related to the wearing of acrylic dentures: An inves-tigation. Br Dent J 1986; 161(12): 444–7.

Lygre GB, Gjerdet NR, Grønningsaeter AG, Björkman L. Reporting on adverse reactions to dental materials: Intraoral observations at a clinical follow-up. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003; 31(3): 200–6.

van Joost T, van Ulsen J, van Loon LA. Contact allergy to den-ture materials in burning mouth syndrome. Contact Dermati-tis 1988; 18(2): 97–9.

Giunta JL, Grauer I, Zablotsky N. Allergic contact stomatitis caused by acrylic resin. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42(2): 188–90.

Goncalves TS, Morganti MA, Campos LC, Rizzato SM, Menezes LM. Allergy to auto-polymerized acrylic resin in an orthodon-tic patient. Am J Othod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129(3): 431–5.

Huang FM, Tai KW, Hu CC, Chang YC. Citotoxic effects of den¬ture base materials on a permanent human oral epithelial cell line and on primary human oral fibroblasts in vitro. Int J Prosthodont 2001; 14(5): 439–43.

Koutis D, Freeman S. Allergic contact stomatitis caused by acrylic monomer in a denture. Australas J Dermatol 2001; 42(3): 203–6.

Danilewicz-Stysiak Z. Experimental investigations on the cyto-toxic nature of methyl methacrylate. J Prosthet Dent 1980; 44(1): 13–6.

Barclay SC, Forsyth A, Felix DH, Watson IB. Case report: Hy-per¬sensitivity to denture materials. Br Dent J 1999; 187(7): 350–2.

Davis CS, Squier CA, Lilly GE. Irritant contact stomatitis: a re¬view of the condition. J Periodontal 1998; 69(6): 620–31.

Freitas JB, Gomez RS, de Abreu MH, Ferreira EF. Relationship between the use of full dentures and mucosal alterations among elderly Brazilians. J Oral Rehabil 2008; 35(5): 370–4.

Karadžić B, Bojović S, Dražić R. Biocompatibility of PMMA-based material implanted in bone tissue. Serbian Dent J 2004; 51(4): 183–7. (Serbian)

International Standards Organization, ISO. Biological evaluation of medical devices–Part 6. Tests for local effects after implan-ta¬tion. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organi-za¬tion; 2007. p. 10993–6.

Zmener O. Tissue response to a new methacrylate-based root ca¬nal sealer: Preliminary observations in the subcutaneous connective tissue of rats. J Endod 2004; 30(5): 348–51.

Teixeira HM, Do Nascimento AB, Hebling J, De Souza Costa CA. In vivo evaluation of the biocompatibility of three current bonding agents. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33(7): 542–50.

Najman S, Đorđević LJ, Savić V, Ignjatović N, Plavšić M, Uskoković D. Changes of Hap/PLLA biocomposites and tissue reaction after subcutaneous implantation. Facta Universitatis 2003; 10(3): 131–4.

Ebadian B, Razavi M, Soleimanpour S, Mosharraf R. Evaluation of tissue reaction to some denture-base materials: an animal study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9(4): 67–74.

Stinson NE. The tissue reaction induced in rats and guinea pigs by polymethylmethacrylate (acrylic) and stainless steel (18/8 Mo). Br J Exp Pathol 1964; 45(1): 21–9.

Dillingham EO, Webb N, Lawrence WH, Autian J. Biological evaluation of polymers I. Poly(methyl methacylate). J Biomed Mat Res 1975; 9(6): 569–96.

Krunić N, Nikolić LJ, Kostić M, Najman S, Nikolić V, Najdanović J. In vitro examination of oral tissue conditioners potential tox¬icity. Hem Ind 2011; 65(6): 697–706.

Dahl JE, Frangou-Polyzois MJ, Polyzois GL. In vitro biocompati-bil¬ity of denture relining materials. Gerodontology 2006; 23(1): 17–22.

Jorge JH, Giampaolo ET, Machado AL, Vergani CE. Cytotoxici-ty of denture base acrylic resins: A literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90(2): 190–3.

Nakamura M, Kawahara H. Long-term biocompatibility test of denture base resins in vitro. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 52(5): 694–8.

Lefebvre CA, Schuster GS, Rueggeberg FA, Tamareselvy K, Knoern-schild KL. Responses of oral epithelial cells to dental resin components. J Biomater Sci Polym Educ 1996; 7(11): 965–76.

Hashimoto Y, Kawaguchi M, Miyazaki K, Nakamura M. Estro-genic activity of tissue conditioners in vitro. Dent Mater 2003; 19(4): 341–6.

Kostić M, Najman S, Kocić J, Krunić N, Ajduković Z, Petrović D, et al. Effect of denture base resin extracts on HeLa cells growth in vitro. Hem Ind 2008; 62(3): 217–22.