Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Proof-of-concept study demonstrates promising biocompatibility and biological responses in dental materials with nanoparticles.
(1) Background: Cerium silicate (CeSi) nanoparticles (NPs) have potential as a restorative filler particle with multifunctional properties to improve longevity. To increase the biological activity, these nanoparticles can be fabricated with ultrasmall pores (mesoporous) (MPCeSi-NP) that can be loaded with a polyphosphate inhibitor, such as gallein. (2) Methods: MPCeSi-NPs were custom-synthesized with a microemulsion method, using cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) as a template for self-assembly. Biocompatibility with oral keratinocytes/fibroblasts was tested, with the addition of examining the biomineralization potential with human bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (BM-MSCs). MPCeSi-NP, loaded with gallein, was tested against Rothia dentocariosa (Rd). MPCeSi-NP was added to a resin matrix of triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) and Bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA) with subsequent mechanical properties evaluation. (3) Results: MPCeSi-NPs had high biocompatibility with oral keratinocytes and fibroblasts, especially at concentrations below 300 µg/mL. MPCeSi-NPs induced the biomineralization of BM-MSCs. Higher cerium levels increased mineralization. MPCeSi-NP had weak antimicrobial activity against Rd. At 1% wt, MPCeSi-NPs did not reduce the polymerization potential and mechanical properties of a TEGDMA:BisGMA polymer material, with controlled release of gallein in a simulated degradation model. (4) Conclusions: MPCeSi-NPs are highly biocompatible and bioinductive and have the potential to improve the biological response of current restorative materials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jones et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: