Menu

Elemental analysis of contemporary dental materials regarding potential beryllium content

Abstract

Exposure to beryllium (Be) can lead to lung pathologies, such as chronic beryllium disease (CBD). This occupational illness has been more prevalent among dental technicians compared to the non-exposed population. Although most manufacturers state that dental materials are Be-free, this prevalence raises the question of whether the materials are completely devoid of Be-traces. Thus, the objective of the present study was to analyze the elemental composition, with emphasis on Be, of a wide range of commercially available dental materials frequently used by dental laboratories. Samples of 32 different materials were collected and analyzed using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) and X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy. The results showed that the Be content was below the limit of quantification in all included samples (< 0.00005 mass-%). Therefore, it can be concluded that possible traces of Be were below clinical relevance in dental materials. Exposure of dental technicians to alternative Be sources should be further evaluated.

Article type: Research Article

Keywords: Health care, Health occupations, Medical research, Risk factors

Authors: F. Burkhardt, S. Pieralli, T. Bergfeldt, G. Wemken, C. Wesemann, D. Stolz, B. C. Spies

Affiliations: grid.5963.9Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; grid.7892.40000 0001 0075 5874Institute of Applied Materials, Applied Material Physics (IAM-AWP), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany; grid.5963.9Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center –Clinic of Respiratory Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

License: © The Author(s) 2022 CC BY 4.0 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Article links: DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21068-9  |  PubMed: 36351929  |  PMC: PMC9646908

Relevance: Relevant: mentioned in keywords or abstract

Full text: PDF (920 KB)

Introduction

Beryllium (Be) is a chemical element and naturally occurring lightweight metal that finds industrial application in electronics, aerospace, and defense equipment1–3. In the field of dentistry, Be has been used in nickel–chromium4,5 alloys with contents of up to 2.05 mass.%6 for the fabrication of prosthetic reconstructions. Be reduces the melting temperature, decreases the surface tension, and increases the bond strength between metals and ceramics7. Furthermore, it improves the castability and polishing of non-precious alloys.

Manufacturing and processing of Be-containing materials is highly toxic, and workers are exposed to the inhalation of Be particles, fumes, or solutions8. Brief exposure can lead to the development of a rare condition called acute berylliosis9, while long-term contact can cause Be sensitization (BeS)10 and chronic Be disease (CBD), also known as chronic berylliosis10,11. An official statement of the American Thoracic Society assessed the prevalence of BeS between 0.9 and 14.6% and of CBD between 0.0 and 7.8%1. BeS represents an immunologically-mediated response to the metallic element without evidence of disease, while CBD is considered an incurable occupational lung condition and is often misdiagnosed with sarcoidosis or other granulomatous lung disorder10. Symptoms of CBD are cough, dyspnea, fatigue, fever, night sweats, and weight reduction3,8 with potential progression to the loss of respiratory function12. A history of occupational exposition to Be, positivity to the beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test (BeLPT) and a bioptic examination, confirming a granulomatous inflammation of the lungs, are considered signs for definitive diagnosis of CBD1. The incubation periods can last up to three decades13. Due to the available evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and the risk of developing lung cancer by occupational exposure, Be and Be compounds have also been classified as category 1 carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer14.

As a consequence of the increased occupational exposure to Be in dental laboratories, dental technicians appear at a higher risk of primarily developing CBD8,15–18. Therefore, to protect workers, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently established a new limit of 0.2 µg of Be per cubic meter of air for an exposure duration of eight hours or of < 2 µg of Be per cubic meter of air for more than 15 min18. According to the current ISO standard for fixed and removable restorations (ISO 22674:2016), the limit value for Be in metallic materials is 0.02% (mass fraction)19. Exposure to Be is considered the causal agent for CBD development, and it remains unclear why dental technicians might be more affected. Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the elemental composition of commonly used dental materials and assess the exact amount of Be. Both, non-precious and precious metal alloys used to fabricate prosthetic reconstructions were included. Furthermore, different types of dental ceramics, titanium alloys, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), and polycarbonate were analyzed. Inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) represents a highly sensitive analytical technique with wide elemental coverage and was applied in the present study20,21 The null hypothesis at study conceptualization assumed that evaluated materials contain traces of Be.

Material and methods

Study design

The analytical work was performed by the Institute of Applied Materials–Applied Material Physics of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany. The study proposal for cooperation between the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Clinic of Respiratory Medicine of the University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany, and the KIT has been approved and accepted by the Karlsruhe Nano Micro Facility in 2020.

Investigated materials and interdisciplinary cooperation

Four non-precious (Co–Cr) and five precious (Au) alloys were evaluated in the present investigation. In addition, seven ZrO2-based ceramics, two feldspathic ceramics, one lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (Li2Si2O5), one nano-fluorapatite glass-ceramic, and one nano-hybrid composite for veneering were included. Furthermore, five implant-supported abutments made of titanium or ZrO2, three PMMA-based materials, one polycarbonate, and one PEEK were examined. The evaluated samples represented a selection of the most frequently used materials for each category in two German dental laboratories, which provided the samples for elemental analysis. An overview of the investigated materials and their commercial name and article number is given in Table 1.

Table 1: Investigated materials.

Manufacturer Article no. Sample name Material
Kulzer H-01028 Heraenium EH Co–Cr alloy
Kulzer M-01068 Heraenium PW Co–Cr alloy
Dentaurum 102-620-00 Remanium Star Co–Cr alloy
Shera 401,070 Sheraheavy-Metal Co–Cr alloy
Kulzer SW12002-10 Mainbond EH Au alloy
Kulzer SW12004-10 Bio Herador GG Au alloy
Kulzer SW12035-0010 Bio Maingold SG Au alloy
Kulzer SW12016-10 Heraloy G Au alloy
Koos Edelmetalle 30,033 Ecobest Au alloy
Zirkonzahn ZRAB8001 ICE Zircon Translucent Oxide ceramic
Kuraray Noritake 6951 Katana™ Zirconia ML 3Y-TZP
Zirkonzahn ZRFC8021A02 Prettau® 4 Anterior® Dispersive® 5Y-TZP
Ivoclar Vivadent 725,196 IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime 3Y-TZP + 5Y-TZP
Pritidenta 220,841 priti®multidisc ZrO2 Extra Translucent 4Y-TZP
Dental Direkt G852017 DD cubeX2® ML 5Y-TZP
Zirkonzahn ZRAB8001 ICE Zircon Translucent A3 Oxide ceramic
Ivoclar Viviadent 247,590 IPS e.max Press LT Lithium disilicate glass-ceramic
Ivoclar Vivadent 168,424 IPS e.max Ceram Nano-fluorapatite glass-ceramic
GC Europe 622,643 Gradia™ Plus Nano-hybrid composite
Kuraray Noritake 35,101,010 Ex-3 Feldspathic ceramic
Kuraray Noritake 901,053 Cerabien™ ZR Feldspathic ceramic
Zirkonzahn ZRAD8001 Prettau® Zirkon 95H10 Oxide ceramic
Straumann 48,710 RN Variobase Implant abutment
SIC 935,727 SIC Standard Abutment Implant abutment
Kulzer 30,503,871 cara i-abutment® titanium Implant abutment
Zirkonzahn BSAF0893 Set ZZ Base B-C-ABCH Implant abutment
Tizian Blank 624,939 Tizian Blank Zirkoniumdioxid Implant abutment
Organical CAD/CAM BL00067-3700 Organic PMMA ECO PMMA
Organical CAD/CAM N/A Organic PMMA DISC Multicolour 5-Layer PMMA
Organical CAD/CAM N/A Organic PMMA ECO Clear PMMA
Ernst Hinrichs Dental 242,774 JUVORA™ PEEK PEEK
Schütz Dental 220,361 Tizian Blank Polycarbonate

Preanalytical sample procession

The samples were divided into seven different groups depending on their different chemical composition. In Table 2 the preanalytical preparations and the chemical digestion are described for each group.

Table 2: Preanalytical preparations and chemical digestion for each included group.

Sample name Cutting(1) Pestle(2) Etching(3) Sample weight(4)mg Chemical decomposition Acid mixture Fill up
graphite oven (5) flux (6) micro wave (7) ml Volume Solution
min°C LiBO2/LiBrg°C min°C HFsuprapure HClsubb(ml) HNO3subb(ml) H2O2suprapure H2SO4suprapure Ultrapure water ml
RN Variobase x – x 90–120 12080 – 1 6 2 – – 2 50 Ultrapure water
SIC Standard Abutment
cara i-butment® titanium
Set ZZ Base B-C-ABCH
Tizian Blank Zirkoniumdioxide x – – 120–220 – – 3 / 30150 / 250 – – 6 – 4 – 50 Ultrapure water
JUVORA™ PEEK
Mainbond EH(8) x – – 180–240 24080 – – – 12 4 – – – 50 10% HCl
Bio Herador GG
Bio Maingold SG(8)
Heraloy G
Ecobest(8)
Tizina Blank x – – 88–185 – – 5/15150/180 – – 10 2 – – 50 Ultrapure water
Organic PMMA ECO
Organic PMMA DISC Multicolour 5-Layer
Organic PMMA ECO Clear
ICE + Farbe – x – 150 – 2/0.02 1000 – – HCl 1:125 HNO3 1:125 – – – 100 Ultrapure water
ICE Zircon Transluzent
KatanaTM Zirconia ML
Prettau® 4 Anterior® Dispersive®
IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime
priti®multidisc ZrO2 Extra Translucent
DD cubeX2® ML
Sheraheavy-Metal x – – 100–129 72090 – – 2 6 2 – – 2 50 Ultrapure water
Heraenium EH(8)
Heraenium PW(8)
Remanium Star(8)
e.max Press LT – x – 120–150 – 2 / 0.02 1000 – – – HNO3 10%50 – – – 100 Ultrapure water
e.max Ceram
GradiaTM Plus
Ex-3
Cerabien™ ZR
Prettau® Zirkon 95H10

(1) cutting edge made of steel (1 BR/6, Peddinghaus, Germany).

(2) mortar mill made of Si3N4 (SRS-2000, Analysen Geräte GmbH, Leutkirch, Germany).

(3) mixed acid (HCl 35% sub., HNO3 subb., ultrapure water (OmniaPure, stakpure GmbH, Niederahr, Germany)).

(4) weighing accuracy ± 0.05 mg; (XP56, Mettler-Toledo, Gießen, Germany).

(5) EasyDigest, Analab, Hoenheim, Germany.

(6) FLUXER F1, Equilab S.A., Madrid, Spain.

(7) Speedwave XPERT, DAK 100, Berghof, Germany.

(8) not completely solved.

Inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometr

Each sample solution was diluted several times depending on the concentration of the various elements. Instead of using volumetric dilution methods, the sample solution and ultrapure water were weighed (XP 205, Mettler-Toledo, Gießen, Germany). Analysis of the elements was accomplished with four different calibration solutions and an internal standard (Sc) by ICP-OES (iCAP 7600 ICP-OES Duo, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) (Table 3). For Be the solution was, if necessary, matrix adapted (Ti, Co, Cu, Zr, Mo, Pd, In, W, Pt, Au). The range of the calibration solutions extended from 0.0005 to 0.01 mg/l. One to three wavelengths of Be were used for the calculation.

Table 3: Instrument settings for ICP-OES.

ICP Peristaltic pump
Mira Mist peek nebulizer Gas flow 0.6 (L/min)
Cyclon teflon spray chamber
Ceramic torch with ceramic injector tube
RF power (W) 1150
Auxiliary gas flow 0.5 (L/min) for main compounds
1.0 (L/min) for high matrix content
Wavelength (nm) Be 234.861; 313.042; 313.107
Al 176.638; 308.215; 394.401; 396.152
Si 212.412; 221.667; 251.611
K 766.490; 769.896
Ti 323.452; 334.188; 334.941; 337.280; 338.376
V 268.796; 292.464; 309.464
Cr 205.560; 206.157; 267.716
Co 228.616; 230.786; 238.892
Cu 213.598; 324.754; 327.396
Zn 202.548; 206.200; 213.856
Ga 287.424; 294.364; 403.298; 417.206
Y 371.030; 377.433; 437.494
Zr 339.198; 346.823; 348.115; 349.621; 357.685; 383.676
Mo 202.030; 203.844; 204.598
Pd 324.270; 340.458; 360.955
Ag 243.779; 32.068; 338.289
In 230.606; 303.936; 325.609; 410.172
Sn 175.790; 189.989; 181.120
Ba 230.424; 233.527; 413.066
Hf 251.303; 264.141; 277.336
W 207.911; 220.448; 224.875
Pt 177.709; 203.646; 214.423; 224.552
Au 197.819; 208.209; 211.068; 242.795; 267.595

X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy

All samples were analyzed semiquantitative via X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF) (Pioneer S4, Bruker AXS, Karlsruhe, Germany) against different universal calibrations depending on the material of the samples (metal, oxide, etc.).

Quality control

The certified ICP calibration solutions (Aesar, Thermo Fisher (Kandel) GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany, CPAChem, Bogomilovo, Bulgaria) were controlled with another certified ICP solution from a different producer (Agilent, Waldbronn, Germany; Merck, Darmstadt, Germany). The recovery of these standards in matrix-adapted solutions was between 95 and 105%.

Descriptive statistics

Results of the elemental analysis are described in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as the mean outcome, standard deviation (SD) and measurement uncertainty ( ±). Data regarding the oxides are semiquantitative results determined with XRF against a universal calibration. The results were normalized to 100.

Table 4: ICP-OES results of non-precious metal alloys.

Element Unit LOQ Heraenium EH Heraenium PW Remanium Star Sheraheavy-Metal
Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ±
Be mass-% 0.00001 < 0.00001 – – < 0.00001 – – < 0.00001 – – < 0.00001 – –
Cr mass-% 0.1 26.9 – 2.7 23.0 – 2.3 23.0 1.2 30.9 0.1 1.5
Mn mass-% 0.100 0.568 – 0.114 0.677 – 0.169 < 0.100 – – 0.515 0.103
Fe mass-% 0.050 0.012 – 0.003 4.160 – 0.416 0.034 – 0.009 0.564 – 0.056
Co mass-% 0.1 63.4 – 6.3 54.7 – 5.5 59.8 4.6 3,0 59.1 0.2 3.0
Ga mass-% 0.37 < 0.37 – – < 0.37 – – < 0.37 – – < 0.37 – –
Mo mass-% 0.09 7.57 – 1.14 < 0.09 – 0.22 – 4.97 0.01 0.25
In mass-% 0.06 < 0.06 – – < 0.06 – < 0.06 – < 0.06 –
Sn mass-% 0.03 < 0.03 – – < 0.03 – < 0.03 – < 0.03 –
W mass-% 0.07 < 0.07 – – 15.90 – 1,59 9.56 – < 0.07 – –
Pt mass-% 0.05 < 0.05 – – < 0.05 – < 0.05 – < 0.05 – –
Au mass-% 0.05 < 0.05 – – < 0.05 – < 0.05 – < 0.05 – –
Total mass-% 98.44989 98.43700 92.61400 96.04884

LOQ limit of quantitation, SD standard deviation, ± : measurement uncertainty.

Table 5: ICP-OES results of precious metal alloys.

Element Unit LOQ Mainbond EH Bio Herador GG Bio Maingold SG Heraloy G Ecobest
Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ±
Be mass-% 0.000004 < 0.000004 – – < 0.000004 – – < 0.000004 – – < 0.000004 – – < 0.000004 – –
Fe mass-% 0.200 < 0.200 – – 0.983 – 0.246 < 0.200 – – 0.318 – 0.080 0.230 – 0.058
Cu mass-% 0.53 7.43 0.03 0.37 < 0.53 – – 12.1 0.1 0.6 < 0.53 – – < 0.53 – –
Zn mass-% 0.100 0.482 0.003 0.024 < 0.100 – – 0.473 0.006 0.024 < 0.100 – – 1.36 0.01 0.07
Ga mass-% 0.13 n.a – – < 0.13 – – n.a – – 1.97 0.02 0.10 n.a – –
Pd mass-% 0.40 < 0.40 – – < 0.40 – – < 0.40 – – 35.9 0.1 3.6 9.73 0.10 0.49
Ag mass-% 0.30 15.2 – 1.52 n.a – – 14.3 – 1.43 n.a – – 29.1 – 2.9
In mass-% 0.30 < 0.30 – – 1.65 0.01 0.08 < 0.30 – – 8.21 0.11 0.41 3.96 0.01 0.20
Pt mass-% 0.12 8.36 0.04 3.59 11.2 0.1 3.59 3.85 0.01 3.59 < 0.12 – – < 0.12 – –
Au mass-% 0.2 69.0 0.5 4.2 84.6 0.8 5.2 70.2 0.5 4.3 50.8 0.5 3.1 56.3 0.3 3.4
Total mass-% 100.472 98.433 100.923 97.198 100.680

LOQ limit of quantitation, SD standard deviation, ± : measurement uncertainty; n.a. not available.

Table 6: ICP-OES results of oxide ceramics.

Element Unit LOQ ICE Zircon Transluzent Katana Zirconia ML Prettau® 4 Anterior® Dispersive® IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime priti®multidisc ZrO2 Extra Translucent DD cubeX2® ML ICE Zircon Transluzent A3
Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ±
Be mass-% 0.00005 < 0.00005 – – < 0.00005 – – < 0.00005 – – < 0.00005 – – < 0.00005 – – < 0.00005 – – < 0.00005 – –
Y mass-% 0.01 4.29 0.03 0.21 5.58 0.13 0.28 6.49 0.03 0.32 5.38 0.05 0.27 5.24 0.02 0.26 7.56 0.13 0.38 4.25 0.08 0.21
Zr mass-% 2.6 68.0 0.6 3.4 67.3 1.5 3.4 66.1 0.3 3.3 67.5 0.8 3.4 67.3 0.3 3.4 65.3 1.2 3.3 67.9 1.3 3.4
Hf mass-% 0.02 1.49 0.01 0.07 1.29 0.03 0.06 1.29 0.01 0.06 1.50 0.02 0.08 1.45 0.01 0.07 1.42 0.03 0.07 1.55 0.03 0.08
Total mass-% 73.78 74.17 73.88 74.38 73.99 74.28 73.70

LOQ limit of quantitation, SD standard deviation, ± : measurement uncertainty.

Results

Detailed results of the ICP-OES elemental analysis are shown in Tables 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Table 7: ICP-OES results of further investigated ceramic materials.

Element Unit LOQ IPS e.max Press LT IPS e.max Ceram GradiaTM Plus Ex-3 Cerabien™ ZR Prettau® Zirkon 95H10
Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± MW SD ±
Be mass-% 0.00002 < 0.00002 – – < 0.00002 – – < 0.00002 – – < 0.00002 – – < 0.00002 – – < 0.00002 – –
Na2O mass-% – 0.42 – – 3.69 – – 0.21 – – 4.71 – – 4.15 – – – – –
MgO mass-% – 0.26 – – – – – – – 0.32 – – 0.30 – – – – –
Al2O3 mass-% – 2.22 – – 8.08 – – 6.89 – – 15.9 – – 12.6 – – 0.6 – –
SiO2 mass-% – 76.0 – – 49.1 – – 49.8 – – 64.9 – – 71.70 – – 5.41 – –
P2O5 mass-% – 1.98 – – 0.12 – – 0.03 – – – – – – – – – – –
SO3 mass-% – 0.06 – – 0.05 – – 0.74 – – 0.04 – – 0.03 – – – – –
K2O mass-% – 7.53 – – 7.67 – – 0.16 – – 11.0 – – 7.81 – – 0.24 – –
CaO mass-% – 0.06 – – 1.99 – – 0.13 – – 0.80 – – 0.75 – – 0.06 – –
TiO2 mass-% – – – – 1.41 – – 0.30 – – – – – – – – 0.05 – –
Cr2O3 mass-% – 0.12 – – 0.04 – – – – – 0.07 – – 0.08 – – – – –
MnO mass-% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Fe2O3 mass-% – 0.26 – – 0.09 – – 0.09 – – 0.15 – – 0.15 – – 0.26 – –
Co2O3 mass-% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
NiO mass-% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CuO mass-% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.03 – –
ZnO mass-% – 4.67 – – 5.01 – – – – – 0.22 – – 0.06 – – 0.06 – –
SrO mass-% – 2.70 – – 8.37 – – 0.35 – – – – – – – – – –
Y2O3 mass-% – – – – 0.53 – – – – – 0.10 – – 0.15 – – 5.03 – –
ZrO2 mass-% – 1.40 – – 9.49 – – – – – 0.64 – – 0.56 – – 85.80 – –
Nb2O5 mass-% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.71 – –
SnO mass-% – – – – 3.78 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Sb2O3 mass-% – – – – – – – – – – 1.15 – – 1.24 – – – – –
BaO mass-% – – – – – – – 41.3 – – – – – – – – – – –
La2O3 mass-% – 0.50 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
CeO2 mass-% – 1.00 – – 0.58 – – – – – – – – 0.42 – – – – –
Tb2O3 mass-% – 0.82 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
HfO2 mass-% – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1.80 – –
Total mass-% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

LOQ limit of quantitation, SD standard deviation, ± : measurement uncertainty.

Table 8: ICP-OES results of metallic and non-metallic implant abutment materials.

Element Unit LOQ RN Variobase SIC Standard Abutment cara i-abutment® titanium Set ZZ Base B-C-ABCH Tizian Blank Zirkoniumdioxid
Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ±
Be mass-% 0.000004 < 0.000004 – – < 0.000004 – – < 0.000004 – – < 0.000004 – – < 0.000004 – –
Al mass-% 0.04 < 0.04 – – 5.74 0.08 0.15 5.88 0.11 0.16 5.62 0.10 0.15 n.a – –
Ti mass-% 0.2 100.0 0.5 2.4 89.8 0.1 2.2 89.9 0.1 2.2 90.2 0.1 2.2 11.3 0.2 2.3
V mass-% 0.13 < 0.13 – – 4.06 0.02 0.09 3.97 0.03 0.08 3.84 0.02 0.08 n.a – –
Total mass-% 100.0 99.60 99.75 99.66 11.30

LOQ limit of quantitation, SD standard deviation, ± : measurement uncertainty, n.a. not available.

Non-precious metal alloys

The limit of quantitation of Be in ICP-OES analysis is 0.1 mg/kg (Table 4). This Be level could not be measured in any non-precious dental alloy sample. Co was the main component in all the samples studied, followed by Cr. Heraenium PW (15.9 mass %) and Remanium Star (9.6 mass %) are the only ones containing W; Heranium PW showed the highest amount of Fe (4.2 mass %).

Precious metal alloys

The main component of all precious alloys was Au (50.8–84.6 mass-%; Table 5). Maingold EH and Bio Maingold SG presented also Cu, Ag and Pt, whereas in Bio Herador GG the second main element besides Au was Pt. Heraloy G showed the highest amount of Pd (35.9 mass-%) and Ecobest the highest amount of Ag (29.1 mass-%). Be was not determined in any of the precious metal alloy samples tested (limit of quantitation of 0.04 mg/kg).

Oxide ceramics

Data of the three most present elements are semiquantitative and determined with XRF against a universal calibration. The concentration data can vary from more than 25 to < 5%. The results were normalized to 100. Be concentration of the tested oxide ceramics resulted below the measuring limit of 0.5 mg/kg (Table 6). All the oxide ceramics investigated had a Zr content between 66.1 and 68 mass%. Y was contained in all samples and DD cubeX2® ML (7.6 mass-%) showed the highest content. Furthermore, Hf, which belongs to the group of heavy metals, was detected in all samples ranging between 1.29 and 1.55 mass %.

Other ceramics

As for the oxide ceramics, semiquantitative results were obtained with XRF against a universal calibration. The concentration data can vary by more than 100% at concentrations < 5% and the results were normalized to 100. None of the evaluated samples contained Be (limit of quantitation < 0.2 mg/kg) (Table 7). IPS e.max Press contained 76 mass-% SiO2, while IPS e.max Ceram contained 49.1 mass-% SiO2 with a higher content of ZrO2 (9.49 mass-%) compared to the other groups. Gradia™ Plus is the only investigated nano-hybrid composite containing BaO (41.3 mass-%), the second-largest component in this material after SiO2 (49.8 mass-%).

Implant abutments

The elemental analysis of the implant abutments showed that the SIC standard abutment and the cara i-abutment ® titanium had a similar elemental composition (Table 8). Both consisted of approximately 90 mass-% Ti, 4 mass-% V and 6 mass-% Al. The RN Variobase abutment was measured to be 100 mass-% Ti (with a standard deviation of 0.5 mass-% and measurement uncertainty of 2.4 mass-%). The values for Al, Ti and V were below the respective detection limit. Therefore, a possible Be content was below the detection limit for all the evaluated samples.

PMMA, PEEK, polycarbonate

The analysis of the three PMMA, one PEEK, and one polycarbonate material revealed a Be content < 0.08 mg/kg for all the evaluated samples (Table 9).

Table 9: ICP-OES results of included PEEK-, PMMA- and polycarbonate-based materials.

Juvora PEEK Tizian Blank Organic PMMA Eco A3 Organic PMMA DISC Multicolor 5-Layer Organic PMMA Eco Clear
Element Unit LOQ Mean SD ± Mean SD ± Mean SD ± MW SD ± MW SD ±
Be mg/kg 0.04 < 0.04 – < 0.08 – < 0.08 – < 0.08 – < 0.08 –

LOQ limit of quantitation, SD standard deviation, ± : measurement uncertainty.

Discussion

The objective of this study was to investigate multiple currently used dental materials concerning their possible Be content. To our best knowledge, no studies have conducted an elemental analysis for the detection of Be using a comparable broad spectrum of different dental materials, which includes precious and non-precious alloys, ceramics, PMMA, PEEK, and polycarbonate. Importantly, due to the low occupational exposure limits (0.2 mg Be/m3 air), a very sensitive methodology is necessary to determine the concentration of Be at ultra-trace levels.

Be has been widely used in the past decades to manufacture dental appliances22,23. To date, Be-exposure is considered "a modern industrial hazard"24 which can lead to sensitization and CBD, chronic lung disease2. A key factor for the management of CBD is the prevention of workplace-related and environmental Be exposure25. Frye et al. described a cluster of workers in an industry not directly related to Be processing and suffering from BeS caused by the high levels of Be contained in the concrete dust25. Appropriate protective equipment and preventive measures are mandatory to reduce the risk of respiratory diseases. In addition, routine medical examinations should be provided as for other high-exposure worker categories. Although exposure to Be in working places is being strictly regulated by the Occupation Health and Safety Administration, controlling is difficult26. Dental technicians are at higher risk of developing occupational respiratory disorders such as pneumoconiosis, caused by exposure to dust while handling dental materials27–30. They still seem to represent a population at higher risk of Be-associated disorders as compared to non-exposed workers despite the increasingly use of Be-free materials17,31. Furthermore, while the term "beryllium free" is used by several manufacturers to name their dental products, the concentration threshold for defining a material "free" from Be is still not defined. Further research groups aimed to assess the amount of Be contained in dental materials. Alkmin et al. investigated the microstructural characteristics of eight Ni–Cr alloys in the commerce6. The samples were analyzed using an inductively coupled plasma spectrometer (ICP-OES). Of the eight investigated alloys, five presented Be traces up to 2.05 mass-% and in two of these cases, the Be amount was not reported by the manufacturer.

There are different methods for ICP elemental analysis. On one side, inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry relies on a high-temperature ionization source paired with a mass spectrometer. After nebulization, the samples are atomized, and ions are generated for the mass analysis20,21. On the other side, ICP-OES technology is based on the light transmission at specific wavelengths by atoms that move to a lower energy level. Element type and concentration are calculated based on the position and the intensity of the photon rays. All the analytical investigations of this study were performed with ICP-OES, which allows for precise multi-element tracing with high sensitivity and low detection limits.

Within the limit of quantification of the adapted methodic, Be traces ranged from below 0.000004 to 0.00005 mass-% depending on the group of materials analyzed. Based on these analyses, conducted at the ultra-trace level, it can be assessed that traces of Be are not of clinical significance in the evaluated samples. Therefore, the null hypothesis of the present investigation, assuming traces of Be are contained in the investigated dental materials, has to be rejected. Be was not found in the investigated materials, but further independent studies should address the elemental composition of used dental materials, focusing on heavy metals. A thorough understanding of health risks and the development of strategies to minimize occupational exposure to hazards should be continually pursued.

These results, however, raise further questions regarding the increased prevalence of Be-associated disorders in dental technicians and an evidence-based explanation. Firstly, some of the studies were conducted several years ago8,15,32, and the identification of health hazards, as well as the consequent restrictions adopted, might have caused the modification of the material compositions by the manufacturers. Secondly, despite the large-scale screening, the analyzed samples represent only a minimal fraction of the materials currently used in dental laboratories. Finally, it should also be considered that this study included only materials used in German dental laboratories, while most recent articles describing the prevalence of Be-associated diseases in dental technicians were assessed in other countries17,31,33. Despite the analyses of a large amount of samples by several sensitive methods, this study has a few limitations, including the restriction of the geographic area to Germany and to certain types of material. Analogue evaluations should be considered in future investigations involving a broader group of materials and different countries.

Conclusions

Based on the described elemental analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn:

  • The applied ICP-OES method allowed for a highly sensitive elemental analysis at ultra-trace levels.
  • Be concentration was below the respective limit of quantification (< 0.00005 mass-%) for all the evaluated samples.
  • Further studies are needed to assess the Be amount in currently commercialized dental materials.

References

  1. JR Balmes. An official American Thoracic Society statement: Diagnosis and management of beryllium sensitivity and chronic beryllium disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 2014. [DOI | PubMed]
  2. A Mayer, N Hamzeh. Beryllium and other metal-induced lung disease. Curr. Opin. Pulm. Med., 2015. [DOI | PubMed]
  3. 3.Sizar, O. & Talati, R. Berylliosis (Chronic Beryllium Disease). In StatPearls (StatPearls Publishing, 2020).
  4. A Alavi, M Shakiba, AT Nejad, S Massahnia, A Shiari. Respiratory findings in dental laboratory technicians in rasht (north of iran). Tanaffos, 2011. [PubMed]
  5. LJ da Silva. Effect of casting atmosphere on the marginal deficiency and misfit of Ni-Cr alloys with and without beryllium. J. Prosthet. Dent., 2017. [DOI | PubMed]
  6. LB Alkmin, AAAP da Silva, CA Nunes, C dos Santos, GC Coelho. Microstructural evidence of beryllium in commercial dental Ni-Cr alloys. Mater. Res., 2014. [DOI]
  7. A Chugh. Occupational hazards in prosthetic dentistry. Dentistry, 2017. [DOI]
  8. J Muller-Quernheim. Diagnoses of chronic beryllium disease within cohorts of sarcoidosis patients. Eur. Respir. J., 2006. [DOI | PubMed]
  9. 9.Müller-Quernheim, J. Chronic beryllium disease. http://www.orpha.net/data/patho/GB/uk-CBD.pdf (2005).
  10. J Müller-Quernheim, K Gaede, A Prasse, G Zissel. Chronische berylliose. Pneumologie, 2007. [DOI | PubMed]
  11. A Seidler. Systematic review: Progression of beryllium sensitization to chronic beryllium disease. Occup. Med., 2012. [DOI]
  12. JD Stoeckle, HL Hardy, AL Weber. Chronic beryllium disease. Am. J. Med., 1969. [DOI | PubMed]
  13. PC Kelleher. Beryllium particulate exposure and disease relations in a beryllium machining plant. J. Occup. Environ. Med., 2001. [DOI | PubMed]
  14. 14.International Agency for Research on Cancer. Beryllium and Beryllium compounds. https://inchem.org/documents/iarc/vol58/mono58-1.html (1993).
  15. RM Kotloff, PS Richman, JK Greenacre, MD Rossman. Chronic beryllium disease in a dental laboratory technician. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 1993. [DOI | PubMed]
  16. S Burgaz. Assessment of cytogenetic damage in lymphocytes and in exfoliated nasal cells of dental laboratory technicians exposed to chromium, cobalt, and nickel. Mutat. Res. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen., 2002. [DOI]
  17. M Stark. Biological exposure metrics of beryllium-exposed dental technicians. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health, 2014. [DOI | PubMed]
  18. 18.Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor. Occupational exposure to beryllium. Final rule. Fed. Regist.82, 2470–2757 (2017).
  19. 19.ISO 22674:2016. Dentistry — Metallic materials for fixed and removable restorations and appliances. (2016).
  20. R Antolín. Inductively coupled plasma compared with direct current arc spectrometry for analysis of minor elements in aluminium baths. J. AOAC Int., 2004. [DOI | PubMed]
  21. J Otero-Romaní, A Moreda-Piñeiro, P Bermejo-Barrera, A Martin-Esteban. Inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectrometry/mass spectrometry for the determination of Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn in seawater after ionic imprinted polymer based solid phase extraction. Talanta, 2009. [DOI | PubMed]
  22. JS Covington, MA McBride, WF Slagle, AL Disney. Quantization of nickel and beryllium leakage from base metal casting alloys. J. Prosthet. Dent., 1985. [DOI | PubMed]
  23. Y Tai, R De Long, RJ Goodkind, WH Douglas. Leaching of nickel, chromium, and beryllium ions from base metal alloy in an artificial oral environment. J. Prosthet. Dent., 1992. [DOI | PubMed]
  24. K Kreiss, GA Day, CR Schuler. Beryllium: A modern industrial hazard. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 2007. [DOI | PubMed]
  25. BC Frye. A cluster of beryllium sensitization traced to the presence of beryllium in concrete dust. Chest, 2021. [DOI | PubMed]
  26. W Elshahawy, I Watanabe. Biocompatibility of dental alloys used in dental fixed prosthodontics. Tanta Dent. J., 2014. [DOI]
  27. D Ergün. Pneumoconiosis and respiratory problems in dental laboratory technicians: Analysis of 893 dental technicians. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health, 2014. [DOI | PubMed]
  28. SJ Chung. Pulmonary foreign body granulomatosis in dental technician. Tuberc. Respir. Dis., 2015. [DOI]
  29. HL Tan. Dental technician pneumoconiosis mimicking pulmonary tuberculosis: A case report. BMC Pulm. Med., 2016. [DOI | PubMed]
  30. 30.Kakiuchi, Y. et al. Pneumoconiosis in a dental technician caused by long-term exposure to used dental metals: a case rnisheport. J. Jpn Soc. Resp. Endosc.43, 256–260 (2021).
  31. E Fireman, MR Kramer, I Priel, Y Lerman. Chronic beryllium disease among dental technicians in Israel. Sarcoidosis Vasc. Diffuse Lung Dis. Off. J. WASOG, 2006
  32. N Nishio, H Tanaka, H Tsukuma, R Tokunaga. Lung cancer risk in male dentists: A retrospective cohort study in Japan. J. Occup. Health, 2004. [DOI | PubMed]
  33. S Radi. Respiratory morbidity in a population of French dental technicians. Occup. Environ. Med., 2002. [DOI | PubMed]

Related Posts

The content on this platform is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making any health-related decisions.