Statement On Biocompatibility Of Lithium Disili...

Statement on biocompatibility of lithium disili...
Jan 31 2011 09:23 AM | Alessandro Devigus in CEREC Literature
Introduction

Recently, an article was published reporting some slightcytotoxicity of Lithiumdisilicate ceramics (Bracket et al., 2008). This article raised questions regarding the biocompatibility of IPS e.max CAD and IPS e.max Press, which both are lithium disilicate ceramics(in addition Empress 2 belonged to this type of ceramic).

Articles on cytotoxicity are frequently appearing on dentinal adhesives, composites and alloys. Indeed the same research group also publishedan article on the cytotoxicity of composite materials and ceramics (Wataha et al., 2003, Messer et al, 2003). While there is a wealth of literature on the biocompatibility of resin-based dentalmaterials and alloys, only few authors investigated toxicity of ceramic dental materials. Only one other article could be identified where extracts of IPS Empress 2 have been evaluated for cytotoxicity. Inthat publication extracts of Denzir (Zirconia) and Empress 2 have been tested and no cytotoxicity was observed (Uo et al., 2003). In the following some aspects of biocompatibility testing and theresults for lithium disilicate are discussed.

Comments on the article of Bracket et al.
The authors employed a method outlined in ISO 10993-5 in section 8.3. It seems to be in accordance with thistest. A slight to moderate cytotoxicity was found and “the results suggest that lithium disilicates are not biologically inert, and that many have a similar cytotoxicity dynamic regardless of smalldifferences in composition or processing”.
In this study lithium disilicates were also compared to regular resin-based dental materials. The authors come to the conclusion that the lithium disilicateswere less cytotoxic than commonly used composite materials… furthermore the results suggests that they will perform well clinically in the long term.
This shows that the cytotoxicity found for...