Contemporary dentistry is undergoing a large‑scale transformation in which the synthesis of polymeric materials and digital technologies is becoming the new clinical standard. Interview with Dr. Akash Kumar Giri, co‑author of a narrative review on micro‑ and nanoplastic in dentistry, emphasizes the need for a systemic approach to sources of exposure, risk assessment and the implementation of practical measures to reduce emissions in the clinic and laboratory.
The key challenge is that modern polymeric materials — composites, acrylics, thermoplastics and additive components — simultaneously provide clinical effectiveness and are a potential source of the microplastic fraction during mechanical processing and use of devices. Compositions of PE, PP, PET, PMMA and copolymers require attention to their physico‑chemical properties — hardness, elastic modulus, tendency to abrasion and to chemo‑physical degradation — since these parameters determine the type and distribution of released particles.
It is important to differentiate chronic everyday exposure from acute high‑intensity emissions in dental practice; each scenario has different routes of entry into the body and different control requirements. Finish processing of composites generates a finishing aerosol in the operator’s respiratory zone, milling of PMMA‑blocks produces fine particulate dust, and prolonged wearing of aligners combines mechanical abrasion with chemical degradation and diffusion of leachates.
Empirical estimates indicate a substantial everyday load — use of a toothbrush can release on the order of 2,33 million particles per person per year, toothpaste — up to 1,18 million particles; these data underscore the need to include household sources in exposure models.
At the molecular and cellular levels there are data on particle uptake by cells, activation of oxidative stress, provocation of pro‑inflammatory pathways and possible genotoxic effects, which makes microplastic and nanoplastic the subject of clinical‑biological concerns. However, in clinical epidemiology there are so far no convincing evidences of a causal relationship between dental exposure and specific disease phenotypes; standardization of reporting by number, diameter, mass and chemical composition of particles in field surveys and in longitudinal cohorts is required.
To improve translation of laboratory data into the clinic requires development of reproducible exposure models, increased sensitivity of detection methods — SEM/TEM, FTIR‑microscopy, Raman spectroscopy, pyrolysis‑GC‑MS and methods for nanoscale particles — as well as methodologies to distinguish the effects of the physical particle itself and of released chemical additives.
The practical contribution of the clinician from Lumbini Zonal Hospital emphasizes the transnational character of the problem and the importance of including resource‑limited clinics in research and piloting of control measures. Local clinics are capable not only of providing epidemiological data but also of testing available technical and organizational solutions — from adaptation of aspiration systems to evaluation of economically realistic protocols for disposal and sterilization.
European regulation aimed at restricting intentionally added micro‑particles in products under REACH stimulates transparency of composition and lifecycle management of materials, but does not mean a ban on all polymeric materials in dentistry. Regulatory oversight should focus on requirements for documentation of composition, declaration of absence of added micro‑particles and provision of disposal instructions — this will increase supply traceability and facilitate clinical risk assessment.
Implementation of measures to reduce emissions relies on engineering, administrative and individual interventions — priorities are high‑performance local aspiration, minimization of the distance to the processing zone, use of wet processing and adequate irrigation during grinding and polishing, use of closed milling systems and effective filtration of extraction units. In the laboratory it is advisable to use stationary systems with HEPA/ULPA‑filtration, management of liquid waste and regular validation of filter efficacy.
In clinical communication with patients, recommendations on replacement of worn toothbrushes, soft brushing technique, selection of toothpastes without intentionally added micro‑particles and informing about the significance of individual contribution to the overall particle burden are appropriate; for staff — use of personal protective equipment, including respirators of the appropriate class (FFP2/FFP3), protective goggles and measures for decontamination of clothing and surfaces.
Contemporary dentistry as an integrated ecosystem requires synchronization of materials science, clinical practice and environmental science to minimize risks associated with microplastic and nanoplastic. Standardization of measurement methodologies, international cooperative research and regulatory mechanisms oriented toward transparency of composition and reproducibility of clinical protocols are needed; only such a multidisciplinary approach will ensure the safe introduction of innovative polymeric devices while maintaining high quality of care.
In modern implantology, based on digital technologies and interdisciplinary clinical practice, the problem of chronic inflammation around implants, caused by
For many decades, dentistry was viewed primarily as a separate field of medicine, focused on the treatment of teeth, periodontal
OTEXE.COM uses cookies to personalize the services and improve the usability of the site. If you do not want to use cookies, please disable them in your browser settings.
