Acta Scientific Dental Sciences (ISSN: 2581-4893)

Research Article Volume 5 Issue 1

A Comparative Study of Biocompatibility and Marginal Adaptability of MTA, Biodentine, and Glass Ionomer Cement as Root -End Filling Materials (Comparative In-Vitro Study)

Mohammed Awadd Ali1*, Maged M Negm2 and Heba AEl-Asfouri3

1Masters Student, Endodontic department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Egypt
2Professor of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Egypt
3Associate Professor of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Egypt

*Corresponding Author: Mohammed Awadd Ali, Masters Student, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Egypt

Received: December 08, 2020; Published: December 28, 2020

×

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare the in vitro biological behavior and marginal adaptability of MTA, Biodentine and glass-ionomer cement as retrograde filling materials.

Methodology: The biocompatibility test was made on fibroblast cells regarding cell viability. The cells were exposed to the extracts of the materials of 1, 5 and 7 days to measure cell viability using MTT assay. Regarding marginal adaptability twenty-four single-rooted teeth were resected 3 mm from the apex. Root-end cavities were then prepared using a fissure bur and filled with one of the following materials Glass ionomer cement (GIC), Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and a bioactive cement Biodentine. The roots were then sectioned longitudinally. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to determine area of gaps and adaptation of the root-end filling materials with the dentin.

Results: Results showed that Biodentine and MTA maintained favorable cell viability compared with GIC over the three observation points, also Biodentine and MTA exhibited the lowest marginal gaps than GIC that showed the least adaptation with largest marginal gaps.

Conclusion: MTA and Biodentine display good cytocompatibility with normal fibroblast cells, both did not significantly affect cell proliferation and can be classified as biocompatible retrograde filing materials, While GIC significantly affect fibroblast proliferation and should be used with caution.

Concerning marginal adaptability, MTA and Biodentine showed less micro-gaps with the dentinal walls compared with GIC and they can be used successfully as retrograde filling materials.

Keywords: MTA; Biodentine; GIC; MTT; Biocompatibility; Marginal Adaptability

×

References

  1. Shahi Shahriar., et al. “Comparative investigation of marginal adaptation of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Portland cement as root-end filling materials: A scanning electron microscopy (SEM) study”. African Journal of Biotechnology 10(2011):11.
  2. Bidar Maryam., et al. “Comparative SEM study of the marginal adaptation of white and grey MTA and Portland cement”. Australian Endodontic Journal: The Journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc 1 (2007): 2-6.
  3. Oliveira Helder Fernandes., et al. “Evaluation of marginal adaptation of root-end filling materials using scanning electron microscopy”. Iranian Endodontic Journal4 (2013): 182-186.
  4. Almeida, Bernardo M., et al. “In vitro evaluation of dentin marginal adaptation of three root-end filling materials inserted with and without surgical microscope”. Dental Press Endodontics 2(2012):20-25.
  5. Stabholz, A., et al. “Marginal adaptation of retrograde fillings and its correlation with sealability”. Journal of Endodontics5 (1985): 218-223.
  6. A Saberi Eshagh., et al. “Cytotoxic effects of mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium enrichedmixture cement, Biodentine and octacalcium pohosphate onhuman gingival fibroblasts”. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects2 (2016): 75-80.
  7. Mosmann T. “Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays”. Journal of Immunological Methods1-2 (1983): 55-63.
  8. Keiser K., et al. “Cytotoxicity of mineral trioxide aggregate using human periodontal ligament fibroblasts”. Journal of Endodontics5 (2000): 288-291.
  9. Camilleri, J., et al. “Biocompatibility of two commercial forms of mineral trioxide aggregate”. International Endodontic Journal10 (2004): 699-704.
  10. Zhou, Hui-min., et al. “In vitro cytotoxicity evaluation of a novel root repair material”. Journal of Endodontics 4 (2013): 478-483.
  11. Moghaddame-Jafari, Sasan., et al. “Effect of ProRoot MTA on pulp cell apoptosis and proliferation in vitro”. Journal of Endodontics 5 (2005): 387-391.
  12. Amin Suzan Abdul Waness., et al. “Comprative chemical and biological study of Portland cement and mineral trioxide aggregate as endodontic materials”. Doctorate Degree Thesis, faculty of oral and dental medicine , Cairo University (2006).
  13. Liu Guangpeng., et al. “Tissue-engineered bone formation using human bone marrow stromal cells and novel beta-tricalcium phosphate”. Biomedical Materials (Bristol, England)2 (2007): 78-86.
  14. Makkawy H A., et al. “Cytotoxicity of root perforation repair materials”. Journal of Endodontics 7 (1998): 477-479.
  15. Gartner A H and S O Dorn. “Advances in endodontic surgery”. Dental clinics of North America2 (1992): 357-378.
  16. Al-Fouzan Khalid., et al. “Effect of acid etching on marginal adaptation of mineral trioxide aggregate to apical dentin: microcomputed tomography and scanning electron microscopy analysis”. International Journal of Oral Science 4 (2012): 202-207.
  17. Chong, B S., et al. “The adaptation and sealing ability of light-cured glass ionomer retrograde root fillings”. International Endodontic Journal5 (1991): 223-232.
  18. Zuolo M L., et al. “Prognosis in periradicular surgery: a clinical prospective study”. International Endodontic Journal2 (2000): 91-98.
  19. Lloyd A., et al. “Microleakage of Diaket and amalgam in root-end cavities prepared using MicroMega sonic retro-prep tips”. International Endodontic Journal3 (1997): 196-204.
  20. Baranwal Akash Kumar., et al. “An ex-vivo comparative study of root-end marginal adaptation using grey mineral trioxide aggregate, white mineral trioxide aggregate, and Portland cement under scanning electron microscopy”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD5 (2015): 399-404.
  21. Prati Carlo, and Maria Giovanna Gandolfi. “Calcium silicate bioactive cements: Biological perspectives and clinical applications”. Dental Materials : Official Publication of the Academy of Dental Materials4 (2015): 351-370.
  22. P V Ravichandra., et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation of Biodentine(TM) and Other Commonly Used Root End Filling Materials-An Invitro Study”. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research : JCDR 3 (2014): 243-245.
  23. Ansari Shuja Riaz., et al. “A comparison of sealing capabilities of amalgum, GIC and zinc oxide eugenol cement when used as retro grade filling materials (in vitro study)”. Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad: JAMC3 (2003): 43-46.
×

Citation

Citation: Mohammed Awadd Ali., et al. “A Comparative Study of Biocompatibility and Marginal Adaptability of MTA, Biodentine, and Glass Ionomer Cement as Root -End Filling Materials (Comparative In-Vitro Study)”. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 5.1 (2021): 118-125.




Metrics

Acceptance rate30%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor0.812

Indexed In





News and Events


  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is April 30, 2021.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of “Best Article of the Issue”.
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.
  • Contact US