Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 86, Issue 2 , Pages 203-209 , August 2001

Principles of biocompatibility for dental practitioners

References 

  1. Wataha JC, Hanks CT. Biocompatibility testing—what can we anticipate?. Trans Acad Dent Mater. 1997;109–120
  2. Lemons JE. Dental implant biomaterials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990;121:716–719
  3. Albrektsson T. Direct bone anchorage of dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50:255–261
  4. Black J, Sherk H, Bonini J, Rostoker WR, Schajowicz F, Galante JO. Metallosis associate with a stable titanium-alloy femoral component in total hip replacement. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:126–130
  5. Witt JD, Swann M. Metal wear and tissue response in failed titanium alloy total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:559–563
  6. Vamnes JS, Morken T, Helland S, Gjerdet NR. Dental gold alloys and contact hypersensitivity. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42:128–133
  7. Hensten-Pettersen A. Casting alloys: side-effects. Adv Dent Res. 1992;6:38–43
  8. Hensten-Pettersen A. Skin and mucosal reactions associated with dental materials. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998;106:707–712
  9. Hildebrand HF, Veron C, Martin P. Nickel, chromium, cobalt dental alloys and allergic reactions: an overview. Biomaterials. 1989;10:545–548
  10. Rustemeyer T, de Groot J, Von Blomberg BM, Frosch PJ, Scheper RJ. Cross-reactivity patterns of contact-sensitizing methacrylates. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1998;148:83–90
  11. McCann D. Future of latex debated in states. Am Dent Assoc News. 1998;29(1):10–11
  12. Shah M, Lewis FM, Gawkrodger DJ. Patch testing in children and adolescents: five years' experience and follow-up. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1997;37:964–968
  13. Engle JH, Ferracane JL, Wichmann J, Okabe T. Quantitation of total mercury vapor released during dental procedures. Dent Mater. 1992;8:176–180
  14. Örtengren U, Andreasson H, Karlsson S, Meding B, Barregard L. Prevalence of self-reported hand eczema and skin symptoms associated with dental materials among Swedish dentists. Eur J Oral Sci. 1999;107:496–505
  15. Rustemeyer T, De Ligter S, Von Blomberg BM, Frosch PJ, Scheper RJ. Human T lymphocyte priming in vitro by haptenated autologous dendritic cells. Clin Exp Immunol. 1999;117:209–216
  16. Jontell M, Hanks CT, Bratel J, Bergenholtz G. Effects of unpolymerized resin components on the function of accessory cells derived from the rat incisor pulp. J Dent Res. 1995;74:1162–1167
  17. Rakich DR, Wataha JC, Lefebvre CA, Weller RN. Effect of dentin bonding agents on the secretion of inflammatory mediators from macrophages. J Endod. 1999;25:114–117
  18. BéruBé KA, Jones TP, Williamson BJ. Electron microscopy of urban airborne particulate matter. USA Microsc Analysis. 1997;Sep:11–12
  19. Covington JS, McBride MA, Slagle WF, Disney AL. Quantization of nickel and beryllium leakage from base metal casting alloys. J Prosthet Dent. 1985;54:127–136
  20. Goyer RA. Toxic effects of metals. In: 3rd ed.  Klaassen CD,  Amdur MO,  Doull J editor. Casarett and Doull's toxicology. New York (NY): Macmillan; 1986;p. 582–635
  21. Fan PL, Chang SB, Siew C. Environmental hazard evaluation of amalgam scrap. Dent Mater. 1992;8:359–361
  22. Letzel H, deBoer FA, Van 't Hof MA. An estimation of the size distribution of amalgam particles in dental treatment waste. J Dent Res. 1997;76:780–788
  23. Luz C. State societies can help with amalgam waste issues. Am Dent Assoc News. 1999;22:6–9
  24. Hodgson E. Measurement of toxicity. In:  Hodgson E,  Levi PE editor. Modern toxicology. New York (NY): Elsevier; 1987;p. 233–285
  25. Hanks CT, Wataha JC, Sun Z. In vitro models of biocompatibility: a review. Dent Mater. 1996;12:186–193
  26. Schuster GS, Lefebvre CA, Wataha JC, White SN. Biocompatibility of posterior restorative materials. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1996;24:17–31
  27. Schweikl H, Schmalz G, Federlin M. Mutagenicity of the root canal sealer AHPlus in the Ames test. Clin Oral Investig. 1998;2:125–129
  28. Stea S, Savarino L, Ciapetti G, Cenni E, Stea S, Trotta F, et al.  Mutagenic potential of root canal sealers: evaluation through Ames testing. J Biomed Mater Res. 1994;28:319–328
  29. Wennberg A, Mjör IA, Hensten-Pettersen A. Biological evaluation of dental restorative materials—a comparison of different test methods. J Biomed Mater Res. 1983;17:23–36
  30. Mjör IA, Hensten-Pettersen A, Skogedal O. Biological evaluation of filling materials. A comparison of results using cell culture techniques, implantation tests and pulp studies. Int Dent J. 1977;27:124–129
  31. Hensten-Pettersen A, Helgeland K. Evaluation of biological effects of dental materials using four different cell culture techniques. Scand J Dent Res. 1977;85:291–296
  32. Hanks CT, Diehl ML, Craig RG, Makinen PK, Pashley DH. Characterization of the “in vitro pulp chamber” using the cytotoxicity of phenol. J Oral Pathol. 1989;18:97–107
  33. Schmalz G. Modern concepts in biocompatibility testing of restorative materials. Trans Acad Dent Mater. 1996;9:170–179
  34. Schmalz G. Concepts in biocompatibility testing of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 1997;1:154–162
  35. Improving patient care by reporting problems with medical devices. Definition of a medical device. Medwatch. 1997;Sep;1–8
  36. International Standards Organization: biological evaluation of a medical devices. 1st ed. guidance on selection of tests. Part 1. Geneva: ISO; 1992; ISO 10993-1
  37. Alexander H. Substantially equivalent to what?. J Appl Biomater. 1994;5:375

☆ Financial support provided by Metalor, Medical College of Georgia Biocompatibility Program.

☆☆ aProfessor, Department of Oral Rehabilitation.

★ Reprint requests to: Dr John C. Wataha, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, Medical College of Georgia, 1120 15th St, Augusta, GA 30912-1260, Fax: (706)721-8349, E-mail: watahaj@mail.mcg.edu

PII: S0022-3913(01)82535-X

doi: 10.1067/mpr.2001.117056

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 86, Issue 2 , Pages 203-209 , August 2001

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution