Positive control for cytotoxicity evaluation of dental vinyl polysiloxane impression materials using sodium lauryl sulfate

References

• Brown D, Clarke RL, Curtis RV, Hatton PV, Ireland AJ, McCabe JF, et al. Dental materials: 1994 literature review. J Dent 1996;24:153–84.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen SY, Chen CC, Kuo HW. Cytotoxicity of dental impression materials. B Environ Contam Tox 2002;69:350–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunton PA, Christensen GJ, Cheung SW, Burke FJT, Wilson NHF. Contemporary dental practice in the UK: indirect restorations and fixed prosthodontics. Brit Dent J 2005;198:99–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen EP, Bayne SC, Brodine AH, Cronin RJ Jr, Donovan TE, Kois JC, et al. Annual review of selected dental literature: report of the committee on scientific investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 2001;86:33–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schmalz G. Concepts in biocompatibility testing of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 1997;1:154–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials 2008;29:2941–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwon JS, Lee SB, Kim CK, Kim KN. Modified cytotoxicity evaluation of elastomeric impression materials while polymerizing with reduced exposure time. Acta Odontol Scand 2012;70:597–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sydiskis RJ, Gerhardt DE. Cytotoxicity of impression materials. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69:431–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzanti G, Daniele C, Tita B, Vitali F, Signore A. Biological evaluation of a polyvinyl siloxane impression material. Dent Mater 2005;21:371–4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coppi C, Devincenzi CP, Bortolini S, Consolo U, Tiozzo R. A new generation of sterile and radiopaque impression materials - an in vitro cytotoxicity study. J Biomater Appl 2007;22:83–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne RM. The in vitro assessment of the cytotoxicity of dental materials–does it have a role? Int Endod J 1988;21:50–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO documents. ISO 10993-12. Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 12: sample preparation and reference materials. Geneva: International Standard; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• ISO documents. ISO 10993-5. Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 5: tests for in vitro cytotoxicity. Geneva: International Standard; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• ISO documents. ISO 10993-1. Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 1: evaluation and testing within a risk management process. Geneva: International Standard; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon JS, Illeperuma RP, Kim J, Kim KM, Kim KN. Cytotoxicity evaluation of zinc oxide-eugenol and non-eugenol cements using different fibroblast cell lines. Acta Odontol Scand 2014;72:64–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ISO documents. ISO 10993-10. Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 10: tests for irritation and skin sensitization. Geneva: International Standard; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Baert JH, Veys RJ, Ampe K, De Boever JA. The effect of sodium lauryl sulphate and triclosan on hamster cheek pouch mucosa. Int J Exp Path 1996;77:73–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Veys RJ, Baert JH, De Boever JA. Histological changes in the hamster cheek pouch epithelium induced by topical application of sodium lauryl sulphate. Int J Exp Path 1994;75:203–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neppelberg E, Costea DE, Vintermyr OK, Johannessen AC. Dual effects of sodium lauryl sulphate on human oral epithelial structure. Exp Dermatol 2007;16:574–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciapetti G, Granchi D, Stea S, Savarino L, Verri E, Gori A, et al. Cytotoxicity testing of materials with limited in vivo exposure is affected by the duration of cell-material contact. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;42:485–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandikos MN. Polyvinyl siloxane impression materials: an update on clinical use. Australian Dent J 1998;43:428–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rupp F, Axmann D, Jacobi A, Groten M, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Hydrophilicity of elastomeric non-aqueous impression materials during setting. Dent Mater 2005;21:94–102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eliasson ST, Holte NO. Rubber-base impression material as a foreign body. Report of a case. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1979;48:379–80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sivers JE, Johnson GK. Adverse soft tissue response to impression procedures: report of case. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;116:58–60.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bednarkiewicz A, Rodrigues RM, Whelan MP. Non-invasive monitoring of cytotoxicity based on kinetic changes of cellular autofluorescence. Toxicol In Vitro 2011;25:2088–94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kowitz G, Lucatorto F, Bennett W. Effects of dentifrices on soft tissues of the oral cavity. J Oral Med 1973;28:105–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ISO documents. ISO 7405, Amd 1. Dentistry-Evaluation of biocompatibility of medical devices used in dentistry, Amd 1: positive control materials. Geneva: International Standard; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Grundke K, Michel S, Knispel G, Grundler A. Wettability of silicone and polyether impression materials: characterization by surface tension and contact angle measurements. Colloid Surface A 2008;317:598–609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanehira M, Finger WJ, Komatsu M. Surface detail reproduction with new elastomeric dental impression materials. Quintessence Int 2007;38:479–88.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Repetto G, del Peso A, Zurita JL. Neutral red uptake assay for the estimation of cell viability/cytotoxicity. Nat Protoc 2008;3:1125–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar