Next Article in Journal
Sol-Gel Synthesis and Characterization of the Cu-Mg-O System for Chemical Looping Application
Next Article in Special Issue
Minimization of Adverse Effects Associated with Dental Alloys
Previous Article in Journal
Controllable Preparation of Spherical Molybdenum Nano-Powders by One-Step Reduction of APM in Radio Frequency Hydrogen Plasma
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dentin Exposure after Tooth Preparation for Laminate Veneers: A Microscopical Analysis to Evaluate the Influence of Operators’ Expertise
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Bioactive Dental Materials: The Current Status

by
Gianrico Spagnuolo
Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples “Federico II”, 80138 Napoli, Italy
Materials 2022, 15(6), 2016; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15062016
Submission received: 26 February 2022 / Accepted: 7 March 2022 / Published: 9 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Trends in Dental Materials)
The field of dental materials has undergone a significant evolution in recent years. From restorative and endodontic materials to bioactive agents used for bone reconstruction, the introduction of newer techniques and materials has changed dental practice and treatment planning [1,2,3]. In modern dentistry, there is a great interest in the application of “bioactive” materials for restorative and reconstructive purposes. It must be noted that depending on the application, the perception of what is actually considered “bioactive” differs. In restorative dentistry, the term bioactive usually refers to the ability of a material to form hydroxyapatite crystals on its surface. In implantology, bioactivity concerns the potential of some materials, such as calcium phosphate ceramics and glasses, to provide a direct chemical bond between the implant and the recipient bone. In preventive dentistry, bioactive toothpastes have been employed with the aim to remineralize the outer enamel surface [4]. However, from a biological perspective, bioactive compounds are considered as agents that potentially interact—in a positive way—with living cells and tissues [5].
In endodontics, calcium hydroxide was one of the first materials with bioactive characteristics (introduced in the 1920s) used to promote the formation of a dentinal bridge on exposed pulp tissue [6]. A few decades later, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and its derivates were developed from the basic building material Portland cement, and, now, are commonly used in endodontics. These calcium silicate agents mainly include a mixture of Portland cement with bismuth oxide as an opacifier. The popularity of MTA-based materials in endodontics is due to their hydraulic nature, which confers to them the potential to set in a wet environment, such as root canals. These hydraulic cements, also known as bioceramics, are used for different clinical purposes such as vital pulp capping, perforation repair, apexification, apexogenesis, root canal filling, or as endodontic sealers [7,8]. The bioactivity of calcium silicate materials is a result of their potential to induce the formation of hydroxyapatite crystals on their surface [9]. Since the pH of hydraulic materials is high, phosphate ions from body fluids precipitate with the released calcium ions and form hydroxyapatite on the surface of the bioceramics [10].
Within the field of restorative dentistry, fluoride-releasing restorative material, such as glass ionomer, can be considered to be one of the first bioactive compounds, if we consider adhesion to dental tissues and release of fluoride as basis for bioactivity [11]. However, it should be noted that a bioactive material induces formation of hydroxyapatite on its surface; thus, bioactivity is not an ideal feature of restorative materials. Biomineralization properties of restorations can lead to calcium formation on the surface of dental materials. This aspect may play a positive role in the underlying dental tissue, since bioactive materials would inhibit the action of matrix metalloproteinase enzymes, and improve the hybrid layer. The most common bioactive materials used for restorative dentistry are either based on calcium silicate or calcium aluminate. Calcium silicate-based cements include Biodentine, which presents clinical indications similar to MTA, as well as potential to be used as an intermediate-stress restorative material, temporary restorative material and base/liner. Calcium aluminate restorative materials include direct restorative material and luting cements [12].
Concerning implantology, biaoactive materials have been used as coatings to improve the osseointegration of dental implants and enhance their overall biological performance [12,13]. Dental implants are made from bioinert materials such as stainless steel 316L, commercially pure titanium and its alloy Ti-6Al-4V, and cobalt–chromium alloys [14,15,16]. Different methods can be used to “coat” the surface of dental implants by bioactive materials, including enameling, sol–gel technique, electrophoresis, laser cladding, and thermal spraying. 45S5 Bioglass was the first bioactive glass, developed about 5 decades ago [15]. Other bioactive coatings include hydroxyapatite, zirconium dioxide, titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide. The characteristics of these materials can be further enhanced by adding active agents for different purposes. For instance, addition of silver ions to the bioactive glass structure may improve antibacterial properties [17].
In conclusion, research in the field of dental material is shifting from biocompatibility to bioactivity. In modern dentistry, the ideal dental material is not only biocompatible [18], but also provides biomimetic and bioactive properties. Different bioactive materials can be used in endodontics, restorative dentistry, and implantology and selection of the appropriate material strictly depends on the field of application and its properties.

Funding

This editorial work received no special funding.

Acknowledgments

The Guest editor want to acknowledge all the authors and the anonymous reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Primozic, J.; Hren, M.; Mezeg, U.; Legat, A. Tribocorrosion Susceptibility and Mechanical Characteristics of As-Received and Long-Term In-Vivo Aged Nickel-Titanium and Stainless-Steel Archwires. Materials 2022, 15, 1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wyszyńska, M.; Białożyt-Bujak, E.; Chladek, G.; Czelakowska, A.; Rój, R.; Białożyt, A.; Gruca, O.; Nitsze-Wierzba, M.; Kasperski, J.; Skucha-Nowak, M. Analysis of Changes in the Tensile Bond Strenght of Soft Relining Material with Acrylic Denture Material. Materials 2021, 14, 6868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Venante, H.S.; Chappuis-Chocano, A.P.; Marcillo-Toala, O.O.; da Silva, R.A.; da Costa, R.M.B.; Pordeus, M.D.; Barraviera, B.; Ferreira Junior, R.S.; Lara, V.S.; Neppelenbroek, K.H.; et al. Fibrin Biopolymer Incorporated with Antimicrobial Agents: A Proposal for Coating Denture Bases. Materials 2021, 14, 1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bossù, M.; Matassa, R.; Relucenti, M.; Iaculli, F.; Salucci, A.; Di Giorgio, G.; Familiari, G.; Polimeni, A.; Di Carlo, S. Morpho-Chemical Observations of Human Deciduous Teeth Enamel in Response to Biomimetic Toothpastes Treatment. Materials 2020, 13, 1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Vallittu, P.K.; Boccaccini, A.R.; Hupa, L.; Watts, D.C. Bioactive dental materials-Do they exist and what does bioactivity mean? Dent. Mater. 2018, 34, 693–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Tiskaya, M.; Shahid, S.; Gillam, D.; Hill, R. The use of bioactive glass (BAG) in dental composites: A critical review. Dent. Mater. 2021, 37, 296–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Paula, A.; Carrilho, E.; Laranjo, M.; Abrantes, A.M.; Casalta-Lopes, J.; Botelho, M.F.; Marto, C.M.; Ferreira, M.M. Direct Pulp Capping: Which is the Most Effective Biomaterial? A Retrospective Clinical Study. Materials 2019, 12, 3382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Ghilotti, J.; Sanz, J.L.; López-García, S.; Guerrero-Gironés, J.; Pecci-Lloret, M.P.; Lozano, A.; Llena, C.; Rodríguez-Lozano, F.J.; Forner, L.; Spagnuolo, G. Comparative Surface Morphology, Chemical Composition, and Cytocompatibility of Bio-C Repair, Biodentine, and ProRoot MTA on hDPCs. Materials 2020, 13, 2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Walsh, R.M.; He, J.; Schweitzer, J.; Opperman, L.A.; Woodmansey, K.F. Bioactive endodontic materials for everyday use: A review. Gen. Dent. 2018, 66, 48–51. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  10. Enkel, B.; Dupas, C.; Armengol, V.; Akpe Adou, J.; Bosco, J.; Daculsi, G.; Jean, A.; Laboux, O.; LeGeros, R.Z.; Weiss, P. Bioactive materials in endodontics. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 2008, 5, 475–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Jefferies, S.R. Bioactive and Biomimetic Restorative Materials: A Comprehensive Review. Part I. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2014, 26, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Karamian, E.; Motamedi, M.R.K.; Khandan, A.; Soltani, P.; Maghsoudi, S. An in vitro evaluation of novel NHA/zircon plasma coating on 316L stainless steel dental implant. Prog. Nat. Sci. Mater. Int. 2014, 24, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Fu, L.; Engqvist, H.; Xia, W. Glass–Ceramics in Dentistry: A Review. Materials 2020, 13, 1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Šugár, P.; Kováčik, J.; Šugárová, J.; Ludrovcová, B. A Study of Laser Micromachining of PM Processed Ti Compact for Dental Implants Applications. Materials 2019, 12, 2246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Joy-anne, N.O.; Su, Y.; Lu, X.; Kuo, P.-H.; Du, J.; Zhu, D. Bioactive glass coatings on metallic implants for biomedical applications. Bioact. Mater. 2019, 4, 261–270. [Google Scholar]
  16. Marenzi, G.; Impero, F.; Scherillo, F.; Sammartino, J.C.; Squillace, A.; Spagnuolo, G. Effect of Different Surface Treatments on Titanium Dental Implant Micro-Morphology. Materials 2019, 12, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Priyadarshini, B.; Rama, M.; Chetan; Vijayalakshmi, U. Bioactive coating as a surface modification technique for biocompatible metallic implants: A review. J. Asian Ceram. Soc. 2019, 7, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Spagnuolo, G.; Desiderio, C.; Rivieccio, V.; Amato, M.; Rossetti, D.V.; D’Antò, V.; Schweikl, H.; Lupi, A.; Rengo, S.; Nocca, G. In vitro cellular detoxification of triethylene glycol dimethacrylate by adduct formation with N-acetylcysteine. Dent. Mater. 2013, 29, e153–e160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Spagnuolo, G. Bioactive Dental Materials: The Current Status. Materials 2022, 15, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15062016

AMA Style

Spagnuolo G. Bioactive Dental Materials: The Current Status. Materials. 2022; 15(6):2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15062016

Chicago/Turabian Style

Spagnuolo, Gianrico. 2022. "Bioactive Dental Materials: The Current Status" Materials 15, no. 6: 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15062016

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop