medigraphic.com
ISSN 0001-0944 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

2019, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 2019; 76 (2)

Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of Biodentine, IRM and MTA in cultures of human periodontal ligament fibroblasts

Damián-Morales R, Jacinto-Alemán LF, Portilla-Robertson J, Mendoza-Espinosa BI, Tinajero-Morales C

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 72-76
PDF size: 198.15 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The materials for retrograde filling are diverse. Currently, IRM and MTA are the most commonly used clinical alternatives, however, the introduction of materials based on tricalcium silicates such as Biodentine is relatively recent. Objective: To determine the cytotoxicity of human periodontal ligament fibroblasts exposed to culture media conditioned with Biodentine, IRM and MTA. Material and methods: 1 × 103 fibroblasts of the human periodontal ligament were exposed to DMEM/F12 media conditioned with MTA, IRM and Biodentine in 3 different protocols. An MTT assay was performed to determine cell viability at 0, 24, 48, 72 hours, seven and 14 days. An ANOVA test was performed (p ‹ 0.05). Results: In the three protocols with the different conditioned culture media, the viability of the cells was predominantly proliferative, however, the cells exposed to Biodentine showed a higher tendency than the MTA or the IRM. Conclusion: The cells exposed to the Biodentine showed a proliferative behavior at 14 days of analysis. More research should be done at in vivo and clinical level to obtain more information about the behavior of these materials used for retrograde filling.


REFERENCES

  1. Nash KD, Brown LJ, Hicks ML. Private practicing endodontists: production of endodontic services and implications for workforce policy. J Endod. 2002; 28 (10): 699-705.

  2. Cohen S, Burns RC. Vías de la pulpa. 10a ed. Spain: Elsevier, 2011.

  3. Priyanka SR. A literature review of root-end filling materials. IOSR JDMS. 2013; 9 (4) 20-25.

  4. Baek SH, Lee WC, Setzer FC, Kim S. Periapical bone regeneration after endodontic microsurgery with three different root-end filling materials: amalgam, SuperEBA, and mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod. 2010; 36 (8): 1323-1325.

  5. Chong BS, Pitt Ford TR, Hudson MB. A prospective clinical study of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate and IRM when used as root-end filling materials in endodontic surgery. 2003. Int Endod J. 2009; 42 (5): 414-420.

  6. Wang Z. Bioceramic materials in endodontics. Endodontic Topics. 2015; 32: 3-30.

  7. ISO. Biological evaluation of medical devices. Part 5: tests for in vitro cytotoxicity. 10993-5, 2009.

  8. Chong BS, Ford TR. Root-end filling materials rationale and tissue response. Endodontic Topics. 2005; 11: 114-130.

  9. Johnson BR. Considerations in the selection of a root-end filling materials. Oral Surg, Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999; 87: 398-404.

  10. Ma J, Shen Y, Stojicic S, Haapasalo M. Biocompatibility of two novel root repair materials. J Endod. 2011; 37 (6): 793-798.

  11. Damas BA, Wheater MA, Bringas JS, Hoen MM. Cytotoxicity comparison of mineral trioxide aggregates and EndoSequence bioceramic root repair materials. J Endod. 2011; 37 (3): 372-375.

  12. Zhou HM, Shen Y, Wang ZJ, Li L, Zheng YF, Häkkinen L, Haapasalo M. In vitro cytotoxicity evaluation of a novel root repair material. J Endod. 2013; 39 (4): 478-483.

  13. Keiser K, Johnson CC, Tipton DA. Cytotoxicity of mineral trioxide aggregate using human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. J Endod. 2000; 26 (5): 288-291.

  14. Nakayama A, Ogiso B, Tanabe N, Takeichi O, Matsuzaka K, Inoue T. Behaviour of bone marrow osteoblast-like cells on mineral trioxide aggregate: morphology and expression of type I collagen and bone-related protein mRNAs. Int Endod J. 2005; 38: 203-210.

  15. Maher WP, Johnson RL, Hess J, Steiman HR. Biocompatibility of retrograde filling materials in the ferret canine, amalgam and IRM. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1992; 73: 738-745.

  16. Lindeboom JA, Frenken JW, Kroon FH, van den Akker HP. A comparative prospective randomized clinical study of MTA and IRM as root-end filling materials in single-rooted teeth in endodontic surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005; 100 (4): 495-500.

  17. Tawil PZ, Trope M, Curran AE, Caplan DJ, Kirakozova A, Duggan DJ, Teixeira FB. Periapical microsurgery: an in vivo evaluation of endodontic root-end filling materials. J Endod. 2009; 35 (3): 357-362

  18. Camilleri J, Montesin FE, Papaioannou S et al. Biocompatibility of two commercial forms of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J. 2004; 37: 699-704.

  19. Dammaschke T, Gerth HU, Züchner H, Schäfer E. Chemical and physical surface and bulk material characterization of white ProRoot TA and two Portland cements. Dent Mater. 2005; 21 (8): 731-738.

  20. Schembri M, Peplow G, Camilleri J. Analyses of heavy metals in mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement. J Endod. 2010; 36: 1210-1215.

  21. Grech L, Mallia B, Camilleri J. Characterization of set Intermediate Restorative Material, Biodentine, BioAggregate and a prototype calcium silicate cement for use as root-end filling materials. Int Endod J. 2013, 46: 632-641.

  22. Laurent P, Camps J, De Méo M, Déjou J, About I. Induction of specific cell responses to a Ca(3)SiO(5)-based posterior restorative material. Dent Mater. 2008; 24 (11): 1486-1494.

  23. Li J, Liu Y, Hermansson L, Söremark R. Evaluation of biocompatibility of various ceramic powders with human fibroblasts in vitro. Clin Mater. 1993; 12 (4): 197-201.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com