Cytotoxicity and Physicochemical Properties of a Promising Root Canal Sealer with Bioinductive Property
Fabrício Kitazono de Carvalho1, Fernanda Vicioni-Marques1, Marília Pacífico Lucisano1*, Bárbara Maria Garbelotti Fortunato1, Patrícia Maria Gatón-Hernández2, Paulo Nelson-Filho1, Raquel Assed Bezerra da Silva1 and Léa Assed Bezerra da Silva1
1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of São Paulo, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil
2Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Barcelona, School of Dentistry, Barcelona, Spain
*Corresponding Author: Marília Pacífico Lucisano, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of São Paulo, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Received: July 27, 2021; Published: : August 26, 2021
The present study evaluated the physicochemical properties and cytotoxicity of AH Plus®, BioRoot RCS®, Endomethasone N® and Sealapex®. The working and setting time, radiopacity, flow and dimensional change were analyzed. Primary cells of human peripheral lymphocytes and MTT assay were used for cell viability evaluation. The results were analyzed by One-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-test (α = 5%). The longer working time was expressed by Endomethasone. AH Plus showed the longer setting time of 1450 minutes and Sealapex did not take prey. All materials exhibited acceptable radiopacity and flow properties. Regarding dimensional change, Sealapex® did not expressed results and Endomethasone, BioRoot and AH Plus had values in percentage of 1,269, 1,170 and 1,135, respectively. Endomethasone presented the worst cell viability and AH Plus and BioRoot did not express cytotoxicity (p > 0.05). BioRoot presents compatible properties to the human body cells and physicochemical properties within the ANSI/ADA parameters.
Keywords: Cytotoxicity; Endodontics; Physicochemical Analysis; Root Canal Filling Materials; Root Canal Obturation
- Garrido AD., et al. “Cytotoxicity evaluation of copaíba oil-based root canal sealer compared to three commonly used sealers in endodontics”. Journal of Dental Research2 (2015): 121-126.
- Cotti E., et al. “Cytotoxicity evaluation of a new resin-based hybrid root canal sealer: an in vitro study”. The Journal of Endodontics1 (2014): 124-128.
- Koch MJ., et al. “Formaldehyde release from ground root canal sealer in vitro”. The Journal of Endodontics6 (2001): 396-397.
- Rodríguez-Lozano FJ., et al. “Cytoprotective effects of melatonin on zoledronic acid-treated human mesenchymal stem cells in vitro”. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery6 (2015): 855-862.
- Ozorio JEV. “Evaluation of the amount of formaldehyde released by some endodontic cements”. (PhD Thesis). Ribeirão Preto, BR: University of São Paulo (2012).
- ISO 10993-5 - Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 5: Tests for in vitro cytotoxicity (Third edition). Switzerland (2009).
- Cintra LTA., et al. “Evaluation of the Cytotoxicity and Biocompatibility of New Resin Epoxy-based Endodontic Sealer Containing Calcium Hydroxide”. The Journal of Endodontics12 (2017): 2088-2092.
- International Standard Organization (ISO) 6876. Dentistry - Root canal sealing materials (2012).
- Carvalho-Junior JR., et al. “Solubility and dimensional change after setting of root canal sealers: a proposal for smaller dimensions of test samples”. The Journal of Endodontics9 (2007): 1110-1116.
- Marín-Bauza GA., et al. “Physicochemical properties of endodontic sealers of different bases”. Journal of Applied Oral Science4 (2012): 455-461.
- Sousa-Neto MD., et al. “Effect of different grades of gum rosins and hydrogenated resins on the solubility, disintegration, and dimensional alterations of Grossman cement”. The Journal of Endodontics7 (1999): 477-480.
- Resende LM., et al. “A comparative study of physicochemical properties of AH Plus, Epiphany, and Epiphany SE root canal sealers”. International Endodontic Journal9 (2009): 785-793.
- Allan NA., et al. “Setting times for endodontic sealers under clinical usage and in vitro condition”. The Journal of Endodontics 27 (2001): 421-423.
- Ingle J., et al. “Obturation of the radicular space”. Endodontics. Hamilton: BC Decker Inc (2002): 571-668.
- Siboni F., et al. “Properties of BioRoot RCS, a tricalcium silicate endodontic sealer modified with povidone and polycarboxylate”. International Endodontic Journal 2 (2017): e120-e136.
- Silva LAB., et al. “Novel endodontic sealers induce cell cytotoxicity and apoptosis in a dose-dependent behavior and favorable response in mice subcutaneous tissue”. Clinical Oral Investigations 9 (2017): 2851-2861.
- Martins VJ., et al. “Cytotoxicity of root canal sealers on endothelial cell culture”. Brazilian Dental Journal 1 (2013): 15-20.
- Konjhodzic-Prcic A., et al. “Evaluation of Biocompatibility of Root Canal Sealers on L929 Fibroblasts with Multiscan EX Spectrophotometer”. Acta Informatica Medica3 (2015): 135-137.
- Teixeira L., et al. “Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Root Canal Sealers Using an In Vitro Experimental Model with Roots”. Brazilian Dental Journal2 (2017): 165-171.
- Gomes-Filho JE., et al. “Rat tissue reaction to MTA FILLAPEX®”. Dental Traumatology6 (2012): 452-456.
- Leonardo MR., et al. “Release of formaldehyde by 4 endodontic sealers”. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology2 (1999): 221-225.
- Schwarze T., et al. “The cellular compatibility of five endodontic sealers during the setting period”. The Journal of Endodontics 28 (2002): 784-786.
- Silva EJ., et al. “Long-term cytotoxic effects of contemporary root canal sealers”. Journal of Applied Oral Science1 (2013): 43-47.
- Willershausen I., et al. “In vitro analysis of the cytotoxicity and the antimicrobial effect of four endodontic sealers”. Head and Face Medicine 10 (2011): 7-15.
- Collado-González M., et al. “Biocompatibility of three new calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers on human periodontal ligament stem cells”. International Endodontic Journal 50 (2017): 875-884.