Home
Resources
Publications
Comparison of Various Implant Provisional Resin Materials for Cytotoxicity and Attachment to Human Gingival Fibroblasts

Comparison of Various Implant Provisional Resin Materials for Cytotoxicity and Attachment to Human Gingival Fibroblasts

Ji Suk Shim, Hee Chul Kim, Serk In Park, Hyung Jin Yun, Jae Jun Ryu

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. Mar/Apr 2019;34(2):390-396.

PMID: 30883618

Abstract:

Purpose:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the responses of human gingival fibroblast (HGF-1) in contact with provisional materials with various chemical compositions and fabricated using different methods.
Materials and methods:
A total of 210 specimens in eight experimental groups were used. Groups were divided by chemical compositions (poly[ethyl methacrylate], poly[methyl methacrylate], bis-acryl, and hybrid ceramic) and fabricating methods (direct, indirect, and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing [CAD/CAM]). To evaluate the surface characteristics of each group, roughness, water contact angle, and degree of conversion were measured. The responses of HGF-1 to provisional materials were evaluated with cytotoxicity and cell attachment assay. The roughness, surface energy, degree of conversion, level of cytotoxicity, and cell attachment were compared between groups using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's multiple comparison (α = .05).
Results:
The poly(ethyl methacrylate)-direct/indirect and poly(methyl methacrylate)-direct/indirect groups showed higher roughness than the bis-acryl-direct/indirect, poly(methyl methacrylate)-CAD/CAM, and hybrid ceramic-CAD/CAM groups with statistical significance (P < .05). The poly(ethyl methacrylate)-direct group showed the significantly highest water contact angle, and the hybrid ceramic-CAD/CAM group showed the lowest water contact angle (P < .05). The groups that used indirect fabrication methods showed a higher degree of conversion than those that used direct fabrication methods, regardless of chemical composition (P < .05). The poly(ethyl methacrylate) groups showed significantly lower cell viability than the other groups regardless of fabricating methods (P < .05). The poly(ethyl methacrylate)-direct method group showed the lowest cell attachment, and the hybrid ceramic-CAD/CAM method group showed the highest cell attachment (P < .05).
Conclusion:
Poly(methyl methacrylate) and bis-acryl have lower cytotoxicity to HGF-1 than poly(ethyl methacrylate). Indirect fabrication and CAD/CAM are recommended to prevent residual monomer and achieve high cell attachment. To use direct fabrication methods, the auto-mix system is beneficial for the favorable cell response, as it derives a smooth surface.

Chemicals Related in the Paper:

Catalog Number	Product Name	Structure	CAS Number	Price
AP224962383	Poly(pentafluorostyrene-co-glycidyl methacrylate)		224962-38-3	Price
AP9003423	Poly(ethyl methacrylate)		9003-42-3	Price

As a specialist in analytical chemical Products, Alfa Chemistry offers consumers a wealth of raw materials and a full range of technologies and services.

QUICK LINKS

HEADQUARTERS

Tel:

Fax:

Email: