Biological effects of gamma-ray sterilization on 3 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal: An in vitro study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Selecting the sterilization method is important because sterilization can alter the surface chemistry of implant materials, including zirconia, and influence their cellular biocompatibility. Studies on the biological effects of sterilization on implant materials are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the biocompatibility of gamma-ray irradiated 3 mol% yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (3Y-TZP) compared with unirradiated titanium, 3Y-TZP, and pure gold. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disk-shaped specimens each of commercially pure grade 4 titanium, 3Y-TZP, gamma-rayed 3Y-TZP, and pure gold were prepared and evaluated for osteogenic potential by using a clonal murine cell line of immature osteoblasts derived from mice (MC3T3-E1 cells). The surface topography (n=3), chemical analysis of the disks (n=3), and cell morphology cultured on these surfaces were examined using scanning electron microscopy, confocal laser scanning microscopy, and energy dispersive spectroscopy. Cellular biocompatibility was analyzed for 1 and 3 days after seeding. Cell adhesion and spreading were evaluated using confocal laser scanning microscopy (n=3). Cell proliferation was evaluated using methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium assay (n=3). Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni corrections were used to evaluate the statistical significance of the intergroup differences (α=.05). RESULTS: Gamma-ray sterilization of 3Y-TZP showed significantly higher surface roughness compared with titanium and gold (P<.002). On day 1, the proliferation and adhesion of MC3T3-E1 cells cultured on gamma-rayed 3Y-TZP were significantly higher than those cultured on gold (P<.05); however, cell spreading was significantly lower than that of titanium on days 1 and 3 (P<.05). On day 3, cell proliferation of gamma-rayed 3Y-TZP was significantly lower than that of unirradiated 3Y-TZP (P<.05). Cell adhesion of gamma-rayed 3Y-TZP was slightly lower than that of zirconia and titanium but without significant difference (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Gamma-rayed zirconia exhibited increased surface roughness compared with titanium and significantly decreased bioactivity compared with titanium and zirconia. The use of gamma-ray sterilization on zirconia is not promising regarding biocompatibility, and the effect of this sterilization method on implant materials warrants further investigation.

Measurement of proximal contact of single crowns to assess interproximal relief: A pilot study.

Background: It is common for dental technicians to adjust the proximal surface of adjacent teeth on casts when fabricating single crowns. However, whether the accuracy of the proximal contact is affected if this step is eliminated is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of the proximal contact of single crowns for mandibular first molars fabricated from four different restorative materials, without adjustment of the proximal surface of the adjacent teeth by the laboratory/dental technician. Methods: This study was in vitro; all the clinical procedures were conducted on a dentoform. The mandibular first molar tooth on the dentoform was prepared using diamond burs and a high speed handpiece. Twenty single crowns were fabricated, five for each group (monolithic zirconia, lithium disilicate, metal ceramic, and cast gold). No proximal surface adjacent to the definitive crowns was adjusted for tight contact in the dental laboratory. Both the qualitative analyses, using dental floss and shimstock, and the quantitative analyses, using a stereo microscope, were performed to evaluate the accuracy of the proximal contact of the restoration with the adjacent teeth. In the quantitative analysis, one-way analysis of variance was used to compare mean values at a significance level of 0.05. Results: In quantitative analysis, the differences between the proximal contact tightness of the four groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.802 for mesial contacts, P = 0.354 for distal contacts). In qualitative analysis, in most crowns, dental floss passed through the contact with tight resistance and only one film of shimstock could be inserted between the adjacent teeth and the restoration. However, one specimen from the cast gold crown had open contact. Conclusions: Even without proximal surface adjustment of the adjacent teeth during the crown fabrication process, adequate proximal contact tightness between the restoration and adjacent teeth could be achieved.