Dental Materials and Their Compliance with Standards

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

This assignment will critically analyze the differences of various governing bodies. There are three main governing bodies. Such organizations are the International Standard Organization (ISO), the European Commission (CE) and the British Standard Institution (BSI).

The ISO is an organization that sets standards of materials worldwide. The BSI and CE govern standards across Britain and Europe accordingly. Although, each governing body has different standards and quality assurance. All governing bodies ensure that materials and appliances produced meet set criteria and are released reliably. These governing bodies set standards more many different materials and each organization apply different processes required to accept new materials onto the marketplace. However, different organizations have a significant impact on the production of dental appliances. Such organizations are the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agencies (MHRA), which ensures that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe, and the Medical Devices Directive (MDD) which is intended to harmonize the laws regarding the medical devices inside the European Union.

This essay will be focusing on dental materials, specifically acrylic. Acrylic is a versatile material that is used in many dental appliances and is one of the most useable materials in dentistry. This essay will show the ways in which acrylic is tested and how it meets the standards required.

Biomaterial Testing Methods and Quality Assurance

Medical devices which are used in dentistry must be tested and approved by the governing bodies. The members of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) will agree to the Internal Regulations which stipulate the conditions for giving this European Standard the status of a national standard with no change. CEN members are the national standards bodies of several European countries such as Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, etc. There are three levels of European Standards managing medical devices utilized in dentistry. The level one is for the general requirements for medical devices, level two for requirements for families of medical devices utilized in dentistry and level three for determinate requirements for types of medical devices utilized in dentistry.There are no level 1 standards composed solely in regard of medical devices utilized in dentistry. This European Standard is a level two standard and requirement that apply to those things of dental equipment which are medical devices. This European Standard also shows that there are extra requirements in the level three standards. Where accessible, these are incorporated as regulating references. To cover every one of the requirements for a specific item, it is important to utilize a standard of the lowest available level. This European Standard indicates general requirements for dental equipment utilized in dentistry and which are medical devices. It incorporates requirements for proposed performance, structure characteristics, components, packaging, checking, marking and data provided by the manufacturer. BSI is the autonomous national body in charge of preparing British Standards. It displays the UK view on standards in Europe and at the worldwide level. It is joined by Royal Charter. British Standards are updated by change or revision. Clients of British Standards should ensure that they have the most recent changes or editions. It is the steady point of BSI to enhance the quality of medical products and administrations. BSI offers members an individual updating administration called PLUS which guarantees that supporters immediately get the most recent editions of standards. Because of requests for worldwide standards, it is BSI approach to supply the BSI execution of those that have been distributed as British Standards, except if generally asked (BSI, 2004).

The MHRA is the government agency which is responsible for guaranteeing that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe. The MHRA is an official agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom (MHRA, 2013). The MDD managing the safety and marketing of every single medical device whether utilized in the public or private sector, required member of the European Community. MDD is expected to harmonize the laws identifying with medical devices inside the European Union. The UK Regulations covering these arrangements are the Medical Devices Regulations (MDR). Dental appliances which are made for a specific patient, are characterized as custom-made devices and the requirements of Annex VIII of the MDD will apply to those who wish to fabricate these items (MHRA, 2008).

CE marking must be appended to specific items sold inside European Union to demonstrate that they comply with legislation required by 18 nations in the European Community. CE marking acts as a ‘certificate’ which enables a manufacturer to allocate products inside the European market (Hill et al., 2015).

According to Bluebee (2018) ISO 13485 is a worldwide recognized medical device quality administration systems standard, which was granted to Bluebee for its plan and advancement of programming solutions and information processing algorithms planned for use in diagnostics and clinical reporting. This confirmation is granted for quality administration systems in medical devices. The performance of this accreditation further indicates Bluebee’s responsibility to supplying quality hazard-based programming improvement, regulatory compliance, quality management, and highly secured analytical workflows to clinical laboratories and diagnostic essay suppliers.

The purpose of a research paper was to provide a cross‐section of ISO 9000 quality certification diffusion after some time and its effect on industrial systems. The beginning stage of the investigation is the ISO review of ISO 9000 and ISO 14001 authentications record. Accessible information coincides to follow a synthesis of what has occurred and what is in process internationally. ISO 9000 certification has operated as a catalyst of the current inclinations, to prompt associations towards a basic model dependent on the rationale strategic quality management (Franceschini et al., 2006). Comparing different countries, the advancement of certification after some time is certainly not a modern phenomenon. In few nations ISO certification has been profoundly practiced since standards’ introduction. For example, UK, France and Germany. In some others it met with most extreme interest just in the recent years such as China and other eastern nations. In those nations in which the certification diffusion is a long‐standing phenomenon, the quantity of certificates is near to arrive at a saturation level. This impact is mainly obvious for UK, Germany and France. In these nations the market of certifications is coming to saturation. The saturation level stands for just a restricted fraction of the aggregate number of Corporation Companies (CC). The experimental saturation esteems for UK, Germany and France are 9, 8 and 2 percent of CC respectively in each nation. Quality certification diffusion started when some organizations, with the purpose of separating themselves in the business antagonism, showed a desire to give an outer and formal proof of their organizational efforts towards quality practice. For some European nations, with comparable innovative structures, the outcomes demonstrate that the anticipated normal saturation level is around 10 percent. The equivalent ‘saturation effect’ can be noticed for some other non‐European nations such as Australia, Republic of Korea, and USA (Franceschini et al., 2004). Investigating the regional share of certificates in the pass of time from January 1993 till December 2002, two components are especially relevant. A consistent and efficient decrease of European nations’ certificates and a parallel development of Far East nations’ certificates. This occurs by two essential causes. The development of quality of the market in Europe especially confirm by the accomplishment of the saturation level in many nations, and the appearing of emerging nations such as China and Republic of Korea. The main ten nations for ISO certificates in 2002 stand for more than 70 percent of the total certifications worldwide. Five of them are European nations, for example, Italy, Spain, Germany, France and UK. The first place for ISO certificates is held by China which is considered as an emerging country in the worldwide market. The adoption of ISO 9000 certifications in USA industry has lagged compared with other countries because of inquiries concerning whether the advantages of ISO 9000 enrolment were adequate to counterbalance costs and sheer complexity. The natural dynamism of USA market has also supported this behavior and did not force companies in adopting ISO 9000 certification as prominent element in business antagonism (Stevenson and Barnes, 2002).

ISO standards 10993, 14971, and 7405 determine the modes for clinical risk evaluation, test selection and test implementation. In contact with broke tissues, materials must not reduce the healing procedure. Antibacterial impacts ought to be founded on convenient controllable substances. Nanoparticles are created by intraoral grinding regardless of the substance of nanoparticles in the material, but obviously at low concentrations (Schmalz and Galler, 2017).

Biocompatibility of dental materials has gained expanding enthusiasm during late decades. Therefore, legal regulations and standard test systems are accessible to assess biocompatibility. The provided information is primarily based on an audit of the respective literature in universal peer surveyed journals, on administrative documents and on ISO standards. Endpoints for dental materials are part of most of the test programs such as in vitro cytotoxicity, mainly in vitro genotoxicity, local reactions on experimental animals or in vitro simulation tests, and sensitization which is performed mainly on experimental animals (Schmalz and Arenholt-bindslev, 2007).

Poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) which is also known as acrylic resin is the most common material for full and partial denture bases, and for removable appliances. It has additionally been the synthetic model for some other material improvements in dentistry, such as removable materials. The properties, behavior and handling of acrylic resin also form a basis for understanding those different materials. A polymerization reaction is created as a part of the ordinary dental processes in the laboratory, and the best possible control of this is significant when controlling the properties of the item. Depending upon the type of polymerization, PMMA resins may drain 0.1 to 5 percent of the residual monomer and added substances. Essentially methyl methacrylate (MMA) and formaldehyde, contributing to restricted allergic reactions. Studies have indicated a conceivable cancer-causing and embryotoxic potency of MMA (Bhola et al., 2010). It is important to comprehend both the heat-cured and cold-cured types, whose properties and limitations contrast due to their processing variations. Storage of MMA monomer is an issue because it is a very reactive compound. The properties of the plain item are not perfect, yet different changes to the chemistry are conceivable to obtain better behavior of the material (Darvell, 2009).

It is well known that oral and mucosal has adverse reactions to resin-based dental materials. This occurs when composite resins or denture-based materials come into direct contact with oral mucosa. Biocompatibility is characterized as the ability of a material to operate in an exact application within the sight of a fitting host reaction. This definition suggests a collaboration among a host, a material, and a normal operation of the material. Every one of the three variables must be in harmony before the material can be regarded as biocompatible (Wataha, 2001).

Resin-based dental materials incorporate composite resins, enamel and dentin adhesives, compomers, resin glass ionomer cements, and denture base materials. Biological impacts of resin-based materials on oral mucosa can be evaluated utilizing two distinct types of biocompatibility tests; in vitro tests and in vivo tests. In vitro biocompatibility tests are performed outside of a living organism. The purpose of in vitro tests is to simulate organic responses to materials when they are placed on or into tissue of the body. The limitations of in vitro tests are the absence of simulation of the in vivo circumstance, and questionable clinical importance. The majority of the cytotoxicity test strategies have three principal parts: a natural system, a cell contact, and an organic endpoint (Hanks et al., 1996).

The selection of the endpoint and the recording strategy relies upon the required information. Ordinarily in the principal stage, basic techniques dependent on membrane damage or cell viability and expansion ought to be utilized. If in the last phase of development more specific information concerning the system of the toxic activity is required, or if an extraordinary test technique requires specific endpoints, progressive strategies based on cell operation ought to be utilized. It is usually difficult to translate the seriousness of the organic response observed in the in vitro tests to clinical circumstance, even though these tests provide detailed data on natural associations between the cells and test materials. Therefore, in vivo biocompatibility tests are required to get an exact and comprehensive biological risk evaluation (Scott et al., 2004).

In vivo biocompatibility tests are performed inside a living organism. Animal tests are the most widely recognized type of in vivo tests. In animal tests material is embedded into the body of an animal to assess the topical reactions to the material. In this method of test, it is conceivable to analyze numerous complex interactions between the biological method and the material, hence it is more pertinent than in vitro tests. Nevertheless, animal tests are costly, time consuming, it is hard to control factors, and there are some ethical issues with the utilization of animals (Onay et al., 2007).

Pulpal reactions to resin-based dental materials can be surveyed utilizing different in vitro and in vivo test systems such as dentine barrier systems, 3D tooth slice organ culture, and animal and usage test. Systemic adverse reactions such as hypersensitivity and anaphylactic reactions related with resin-based dental materials have been reported. Systemic adverse impacts of resin-based materials can be surveyed by four distinct tests: allergy testing, systemic toxicity tests, estrogenicity tests, and genotoxicity tests (Pfeiffer and Rosenbauer, 2004).

Research has shown that composite resin monomers have important time dependent toxicity on human and animal lung cells. Eluates from denture base resins had prolonged toxic effects on hamster epithelial cells. Composites, compomers, and dental cements demonstrated that all tested materials were cytotoxic instantly after production and their toxic impacts were decreased after various preincubation periods in most cases (Moharamzadeh et al., 2009).

Biocompatibility of dental materials has turned into a complex issue and a matter of concern for patients, experts and administrative specialists. Thus, it has turned into a critical viewpoint for the improvement of new materials and substantial additional sources are required. Several legal regulations are successful and applicable standards accessible. Biocompatibility investigations must be incorporated at an early period of new material improvements. The exceptional use of a material must be considered when characterizing the vital tests, assessing the outcomes and decide the indications for use. Additional knowledge on the biocompatibility of dental materials has absolutely prompted a superior understanding of material tissue interaction, to the improvement of new materials and basically important safety precaution measures (Wataha, 2012)

The aim of an investigation was to survey connections of in vivo clinical performance with in vitro lab trial of dental materials including polymer-based matrices. A proof-based dentistry approach was utilized to distinguish clinical trials, basic surveys, and meta-examinations including correlations. Components affecting important relationships were reviewed. Clinical research estimations routinely incorporate 10 to 15 categories of clinical perceptions of performance. For instance, shading match, caries impedance, marginal integrity and technical failures. However, this does not correspond well with laboratory properties. Clinical tests of dental materials stand for a minor portion of the aggregate research in this field. Tests are mainly present in a small period of 2 to 5 years and are designed essentially to test the safety and efficiency of the product. A vast proportion of risk factors such as patient, design, material, intraoral location and operator, influence clinical results and are not simulated well in laboratories. Minimal long-term information exists for clinical implementation other than on composite wear. Not many significant correlations of laboratory trials and clinical outcomes are illustrated. New investigations ought to be centered on recovering restorations from service and portraying them with the same trials from typically directed in the laboratory. A lot increasingly long-term clinical tests that include 10 to 20 years of monitoring are required. Those tests ought to incorporate arranged restoration recovery to approach changes in laboratory properties of interest (Bayne, 2012).

The purpose of another research article was to evaluate the condition and success rate of removable partial dentures with various designs 10 years after insertion. Of the 101 prostheses 42.6% were in their original state, 28.7% were amended, and 28.7% had been replaced by new dentures. Therefore, 10 years after insertion 71.3% of the dentures were not replaced by new restorations. The success rate, concerning condition and function, demonstrated 36.6% successes, 23.8% partial successes, and 39.6% failures. Overall, 60.4% of the dentures were still functional. Also, only the one-third of the prostheses demonstrated neither hygienic issues nor technical failures (Wagner and Kern, 2000).

The success rate of the last research paper regarding removable partial dentures indicated very satisfactory results. Nevertheless, materials must be tested in a long-term period to understand better the safety and efficiency of the products in more depth. This is because clinical results can be affected by various risk factors such as the patient, operator, material and design.

Conclusion

Medical devices which are used in dentistry must be tested and approved by the governing bodies. CEN is managing the medical devices that are used in dentistry inside European Union. CEN incorporates requirements for proposed performance, components, structure characteristics, packaging, marking and data provided by the manufacturer. BSI is the national body in charge of preparing British Standards. BSI is responsible to enhance the quality of medical products and administrations. The MHRA is an official agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom and is responsible for guaranteeing that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe. The MDD is a European organization which is managing the safety and marketing of every single medical device in the European Union. ISO 13485 is a worldwide recognized medical device quality administration systems standard. A research paper was purposed to provide a cross‐section of ISO 9000 quality certification diffusion after some time and its effect on industrial systems. ISO 9000 certification has been profoundly practiced since standards’ introduction in few nations such as UK, France and Germany. The quantity of certificates is near to arrive at a saturation level in these countries. ISO standards 10993, 14971, and 7405 determine the modes for clinical risk evaluation, test selection and test implementation. Biocompatibility of dental materials has gained expanding enthusiasm during late decades. PMMA is the most reliable material for removable appliances. However, studies have shown a conceivable cancer-causing and embryotoxic potency of this material. Biological impacts of resin-based materials can be evaluated with in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility tests. In vitro biocompatibility tests are performed outside of a living organism, while in vivo biocompatibility tests are performed inside a living organism. Animal tests are the most widely recognized type of in vivo tests. Hypersensitivity and anaphylactic reactions related with resin-based dental materials have been reported. Composite resin monomers indicated important time dependent toxicity on human and animal lung cells. Materials must be tested in a longer period to understand better the safety and efficiency of the products. The success rate of removable partial dentures with various types of design 10 years after insertion showed 36.6% successes, 23.8% partial successes and 39.6% failures.

References

Bayne, S. C. (2012) ‘Correlation of Clinical Performance with ‘In Vitro Tests’ of Restorative Dental Materials that Use Polymer-Based Matrices’, Dental Materials. The Academy of Dental Materials, [Online] 28(1), pp. 52–71. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.08.594. [Accessed 18 December 2018].
Bhola, R., Shaily M. Bhola, Hongjun Liang and Brajendra Mishra (2010) ‘Biocompatible Denture Polymers – A review’, Trends in Biomaterials and Artificial Organs, [Online] 23(3), pp. 129–136. Available at: http://medind.nic.in/taa/t10/i3/taat10i3p129.pdf [Accessed 15 December 2018].
Bluebee (2018) ‘Bluebee Receives ISO 13485 Medical Device Quality Standard Certification’, Entertainment Close – Up, [Online] pp. 1–3. Available at: https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.bolton.ac.uk/docview/2061780637?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:summon&accountid=9653# [Accessed 19 December 2018].
BSI (2004) ‘Dentistry — Medical Devices for Dentistry — Materials’, BSI, [Online] 3(1), pp. 1–16. Available at: https://bsol-bsigroup-com.ezproxy.bolton.ac.uk/PdfViewer/Viewer?pid=000000000030184610 [Accessed 12 December 2018].
Darvell, B. W. (2009) ‘Acrylic’, Materials Science for Dentistry, [Online] 86(2), pp. 108–127. doi: 10.1533/9781845696672.108. [Accessed 8 December 2018].
Franceschini, F., Galetto, M. and Cecconi, P. (2006) ‘A Worldwide Analysis of ISO 9000 Standard Diffusion: Considerations and Future Development’, Benchmarking, [Online] 13(4), pp. 523–541. doi: 10.1108/14635770610676326. [Accessed 5 December 2018].
Franceschini, F., Galetto, M. and Giannì, G. (2004) ‘A New Forecasting Model for the Diffusion of ISO 9000 Standard Certifications in European Countries’, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, [Online] 21(1), pp. 32–50. doi: 10.1108/02656710410511687. [Accessed 19 December 2018].
Hanks, C. T., Wataha, J. C. and Sun, Z. (1996) ‘In Vitro Models of Biocompatibility: A Review’, Dental Materials, [Online] 12(3), pp. 186–193. doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(96)80020-0. [Accessed 3 December 2018].
Hill, D., Stewart, D. and Balman, E. (2015) ‘What Is Ce Marking? How Technologies Are Classified, and How to Navigate the System’, Value in health: the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, [Online] 18(7), p. 367. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.730. [Accessed 20 December 2018].
MHRA (2008) Guidance Notes for Manufacturers of Dental Appliances, EC MEDICAL DEVICES DIRECTIVES. [Online] Available at: http://www.damas.co.uk/downloads/mhra_guidance.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2018].
MHRA (2013) ‘MHRA’, The Journal of Perioperative Practice, [Online] 23(3), pp. 1–14. Available at: https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.bolton.ac.uk/docview/1315737183?accountid=9653 [Accessed 11 December 2018].
Moharamzadeh K., Brook IM. and Van Noort R. (2009) Biocompatibility of Resin-Based Dental Materials. Materials. [Online] 2(2), pp. 514-548. doi: 10.3390/ma2020514. [Accessed 16 December 2018].
Onay, E. O., Ungor, M. and Ozdemir, B. H. (2007) ‘In Vivo Evaluation of the Biocompatibility of a New Resin-Based Obturation System’, Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontology, [Online] 104(3), pp. 60–66. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.03.006. [Accessed 16 December 2018].
Pfeiffer, P. and Rosenbauer, E. U. (2004) ‘Residual Methyl Methacrylate Monomer, Water Sorption, and Water Solubility of Hypoallergenic Denture Base Materials’, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, [Online] 92(1), pp. 72–78. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.04.003. [Accessed 9 December 2018].
Schmalz, G. and Arenholt-bindslev, D. (2007) Biocompatibility of Dental Materials. [Online] doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2007.03.003. [Accessed 7 December 2018].
Schmalz, G. and Galler, K. M. (2017) ‘Biocompatibility of Biomaterials – Lessons Learned and Considerations for the Design of Novel Materials’, Dental Materials. The Academy of Dental Materials, [Online] 33(4), pp. 382–393. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.01.011. [Accessed 17 December 2018].
Scott, A., Egner, W., Gawkrodger, D. J., Hatton, P. V., Sherriff, M., Van Noort, R., Yeoman, C. and Grummitt, J. (2004) ‘The National Survey of Adverse Reactions to Dental Materials in the UK: A Preliminary Study by the UK Adverse Reactions Reporting Project’, British Dental Journal, [Online] 196(8), pp. 471–477. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4811176. [Accessed 10 December 2018].
Stevenson, T. and Barnes, F. (2002) ‘What Industrial Marketers Need to Know Now About ISO 9000 Certification’, Industrial Marketing Management, [Online] 31(1), pp. 695–703. doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00180-8. [Accessed 9 December 2018].
Wagner, B. and Kern, M. (2000) ‘Clinical Evaluation of Removable Partial Dentures 10 Years After Insertion: Success Rates, Hygienic Problems, and Technical Failures’, Clinical Oral Investigations, [Online] 4(2), pp. 74–80. doi: 10.1007/s007840050119. [Accessed 15 December 2018].
Wataha, J. C. (2001) ‘Principles of Biocompatibility for Dental Practitioners’, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, [Online] 86(2), pp. 203–209. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2001.117056. [Accessed 17 December 2018].
Wataha, J. C. (2012) ‘Predicting Clinical Biological Responses to Dental Materials’, Dental Materials. The Academy of Dental Materials, [Online] 28(1), pp. 23–40. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.08.595. [Accessed 9 December 2018].

Click Here To Order Now!

Dental Materials and Their Compliance with Standards

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)