Back to all available

Dental Microplastics as Emerging Neurotoxicants: A Systematic Review

cognitive-disorders
dentistry
global-health

Abstract

Background: Neurotoxicity is among the numerous detrimental effects that can result from microplastics, which are frequently neglected despite their potential to disrupt bodily functions.
Objectives: To systematically review the evidence assessing the effects of microplastic exposure from dental materials and treatments on the development of neurodegenerative diseases in individuals.
Methods: From 2012 to 2024, relevant research papers were extracted from the following five primary databases: PubMed, EBSCO, Scopus, MEDLINE, and ScienceDirect.
Results: Following a comprehensive evaluation of the eligibility criteria and the protocol of the systematic review, a total of eleven studies were selected from the 503 articles that were retrieved for inclusion. The findings of these studies indicate that a significant proportion of individuals diagnosed with neurodegenerative disorders, specifically Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, exhibit elevated levels of microplastic exposure in comparison to the general population. The pathophysiology of neurodegeneration has been implicated in microplastics through their synergistic effects with other biomolecules in the body and their ability to induce neurotoxicity, immune reactions, insulin resistance, mitochondrial dysfunction, and oxidative stress.
Conclusion: Dental microplastic exposure was linked to neurological disorders in all studies. Bisphenol A dominated the association's microplastics.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].