Tolosa-Monfà Alba, Veroni Alma, Blasi-Cabús Juan, Ballester-Palacios Maria-Lluisa, Berástegui-Jimeno Esther
Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Department of Pathology and Experimental Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
J Clin Exp Dent. 2023 Feb 1;15(2):e110-e117. doi: 10.4317/jced.59868. eCollection 2023 Feb.
The aim of this study was to compare the cytotoxicity of calcium silicate-based endodontic sealer, Bio-C® Sealer, with other calcium silicate-based sealers: BioRoot™ RCS, one silicon-based sealer combined with calcium silicate particles: GuttaFlow® Bioseal, one resin MTA-based root canal sealer: MTA Fillapex®, and an epoxy resin-based sealer: AH Plus®.
NIH 3T3 fibroblasts were cultured and sealers extracts were obtained. Cytotoxicity was evaluated by the MTS assay and the optical densities of the solutions were measured with a microplate reader. This study was designed with one sample for each control group and n=10 for each treatment group of the different sealants. The results were classified according to the degree of cell viability and underwent statistical analysis with the ANOVA test (<0.05). The samples were examined under an inverted microscope to evaluate the effect of each sealer on fibroblast cell morphology.
Cells incubated with GuttaFlow® Bioseal extract showed the highest cell viability without statistically significant differences with the control group. BioRoot™ RCS and Bio-C® Sealer showed moderate (tending to slight) cytotoxicity and both AH Plus® and MTA Fillapex® showed severe cytotoxicity in comparison with the control group (<0.05). AH Plus® and MTA Fillapex® were not significantly different from one another; nor was BioRoot™ RCS from Bio-C® Sealer. Microscope examination found that fibroblasts in contact with GuttaFlow® Bioseal and Bio-C® Sealer presented the most similar aspects to the control group both in terms of number and shape.
Bio-C® Sealer showed moderate (tending to slight) cytotoxicity compared with the control group, GuttaFlow® Bioseal showed no cytotoxicity, BioRoot™ RCS moderate-slight cytotoxicity and AH Plus® and MTA Fillapex® severe cytotoxicity. Biocompatibility, calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers, cytotoxicity, endodontic sealer.
本研究旨在比较硅酸钙基根管封闭剂Bio-C®封闭剂与其他硅酸钙基封闭剂的细胞毒性:BioRoot™ RCS、一种与硅酸钙颗粒混合的硅基封闭剂:GuttaFlow® Bioseal、一种树脂型MTA基根管封闭剂:MTA Fillapex®以及一种环氧树脂基封闭剂:AH Plus®。
培养NIH 3T3成纤维细胞并获取封闭剂提取物。通过MTS法评估细胞毒性,并用酶标仪测量溶液的光密度。本研究为每个对照组设1个样本,不同封闭剂的每个治疗组设n = 10个样本。结果根据细胞活力程度进行分类,并采用方差分析进行统计分析(<0.05)。在倒置显微镜下检查样本,以评估每种封闭剂对成纤维细胞形态的影响。
与GuttaFlow® Bioseal提取物孵育的细胞显示出最高的细胞活力,与对照组无统计学显著差异。BioRoot™ RCS和Bio-C®封闭剂显示出中度(趋于轻度)细胞毒性,与对照组相比,AH Plus®和MTA Fillapex®均显示出严重细胞毒性(<0.05)。AH Plus®和MTA Fillapex®之间无显著差异;BioRoot™ RCS与Bio-C®封闭剂之间也无显著差异。显微镜检查发现,与GuttaFlow® Bioseal和Bio-C®封闭剂接触的成纤维细胞在数量和形状方面与对照组最为相似。
与对照组相比,Bio-C®封闭剂显示出中度(趋于轻度)细胞毒性,GuttaFlow® Bioseal无细胞毒性,BioRoot™ RCS为中度至轻度细胞毒性,AH Plus®和MTA Fillapex®为严重细胞毒性。生物相容性、硅酸钙基根管封闭剂、细胞毒性、根管封闭剂。