Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers

Vassiliki Taraslia; Ema Anastasiadou; Christina Lignou; Georgios Keratiotis; Anastasia Agrafioti; Evangelos G. Kontakiotis

doi:10.4103/ejd.ejd_9_18

European Journal of Dentistry, Table of Contents

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2018; 12(02): 287-291
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_9_18

Original Article

European Journal of Dentistry

Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers

Vassiliki Taraslia

¹Department of Genetics and Gene Therapy, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece

,

Ema Anastasiadou

¹Department of Genetics and Gene Therapy, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece

,

Christina Lignou

¹Department of Genetics and Gene Therapy, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece

,

Georgios Keratiotis

²Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

,

Anastasia Agrafioti

²Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

,

Evangelos G. Kontakiotis

²Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the viability of human periodontal ligament (PDL) cells on MTA-Fillapex, GuttaFlow 2, TotalFill Sealer, and BioRoot^TM RCS in comparison to conventional epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) and zinc-oxide-eugenol-based (Roth’s 801) sealers. Materials and Methods: Sealers were divided into two groups, and five coverslips for each material per group were prepared. In the first group, PDLs were added immediately after the preparation of sealers (Fresh Group), and in the second, PDLs were added after 24 h. PDLs were cultured for 72 h and afterward, counted using standard hematocytometry. A Mann–Whitney U-test and Kruskal–Wallis test were used for the statistical analysis. The level of significance was set at 5%. Furthermore, cell morphology was assessed by confocal microscopy. Results: The number of viable cells for the 24 h-set groups was higher than the freshly mixed in all sealers except Roth’s 801. In both groups, GuttaFlow 2 presented the highest number of viable cells. In a descending order of cells’ survival, TotalFill, BioRoot, and MTA-Fillapex are following and the conventional sealers, AH Plus and Roth’s 801, seem not to exhibit the biological properties of the others. Cells grown on GuttaFlow 2, TotalFill, and BioRoot were observed to be well-formed. In contrast, MTA-Fillapex exhibited untypical morphology. No cells were detected on the surfaces of AH Plus, as well as Roth’s 801. Conclusions: All novel sealers presented increased cell viability in comparison to conventional sealers. GuttaFlow 2 exhibited the highest cell viability.

Key words:

Cell morphology - cells viability - sealers

Full Text

References

REFERENCES
1 Damas BA, Wheater MA, Bringas JS, Hoen MM. Cytotoxicity comparison of mineral trioxide aggregates and EndoSequence bioceramic root repair materials. J Endod 2011; 37: 372-5
2 Gomes Cornélio AL, Salles LP, Campos da Paz M, Cirelli JA, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Tanomaru Filho M. et al. Cytotoxicity of portland cement with different radiopacifying agents: A cell death study. J Endod 2011; 37: 203-10
3 Geurtsen W, Leyhausen G. Biological aspects of root canal filling materials – Histocompatibility, cytotoxicity, and mutagenicity. Clin Oral Investig 1997; 1: 5-11
4 Torabinejad M, Parirokh M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: A comprehensive literature review – Part II: Leakage and biocompatibility investigations. J Endod 2010; 36: 190-202
5 Parirokh M, Torabinejad M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: A comprehensive literature review – Part I: Chemical, physical, and antibacterial properties. J Endod 2010; 36: 16-27
6 Güven EP, Yalvaç ME, Kayahan MB, Sunay H, Şahın F, Bayirli G. Human tooth germ stem cell response to calcium-silicate based endodontic cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2013; 21: 351-357
7 Gomes-Filho JE, Watanabe S, Lodi CS, Cintra LT, Nery MJ, Filho JA. et al. Rat tissue reaction to MTA FILLAPEX ®. Dent Traumatol 2012; 28: 452-6
8 Accardo C, Himel VT, Lallier TE. A novel GuttaFlow sealer supports cell survival and attachment. J Endod 2014; 40: 231-4
9 Zoufan K, Jiang J, Komabayashi T, Wang YH, Safavi KE, Zhu Q. et al. Cytotoxicity evaluation of gutta flow and endo sequence BC sealers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112: 657-61
10 Tyagi S, Mishra P, Tyagi P. Evolution of root canal sealers: An insight story. Eur J Gen Dent 2013; 2: 199-218
11 Kontakiotis EG, Tzanetakis GN, Loizides AL. A comparative study of contact angles of four different root canal sealers. J Endod 2007; 33: 299-302
12 Eldeniz AU, Mustafa K, Ørstavik D, Dahl JE. Cytotoxicity of new resin-, calcium hydroxide- and silicone-based root canal sealers on fibroblasts derived from human gingiva and L929 cell lines. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 329-37
13 De-Deus G, Brandão MC, Fidel RA, Fidel SR. The sealing ability of GuttaFlow in oval-shaped canals: An ex vivo study using a polymicrobial leakage model. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 794-9
14 Zhang H, Shen Y, Ruse ND, Haapasalo M. Antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers by modified direct contact test against Enterococcus faecalis . J Endod 2009; 35: 1051-5
15 Dimitrova-Nakov S, Uzunoglu E, Ardila-Osorio H, Baudry A, Richard G, Kellermann O. et al. In vitro bioactivity of Bioroot™ RCS, via A4 mouse pulpal stem cells. Dent Mater 2015; 31: 1290-7
16 Camps J, Jeanneau C, El Ayachi I, Laurent P, About I. Bioactivity of a calcium silicate-based endodontic cement (BioRoot RCS): Interactions with human periodontal ligament cells in vitro . J Endod 2015; 41: 1469-73
17 Rodríguez-Lozano FJ, García-Bernal D, Oñate-Sánchez RE, Ortolani-Seltenerich PS, Forner L, Moraleda JM. et al. Evaluation of cytocompatibility of calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers and their effects on the biological responses of mesenchymal dental stem cells. Int Endod J 2017; 50: 67-76
18 Konjhodzic-Prcic A, Jakupovic S, Hasic-Brankovic L, Vukovic A. In vitro comparison of cytotoxicity of four root canal sealers on human gingival fibroblasts. Med Arch 2015; 69: 24-7
19 Luber-Narod J, Smith B, Grant W, Jimeno JM, López-Lázaro L, Faircloth GT. et al. Evaluation of the use of in vitro methodologies as tools for screening new compounds for potential in vivo toxicity. Toxicol In Vitro 2001; 15: 571-7
20 Camps J, About I. Cytotoxicity testing of endodontic sealers: A new method. J Endod 2003; 29: 583-6
21 Langeland K. Root canal sealants and pastes. Dent Clin North Am 1974; 18: 309-27
22 Geurtsen W. Biocompatibility of root canal filling materials. Aust Endod J 2001; 27: 12-21
23 Granchi D, Stea S, Ciapetti G, Cavedagna D, Stea S, Pizzoferrato A. et al. Endodontic cements induce alterations in the cell cycle of in vitro cultured osteoblasts. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995; 79: 359-66
24 Bouillaguet S, Wataha JC, Tay FR, Brackett MG, Lockwood PE. Initial in vitro biological response to contemporary endodontic sealers. J Endod 2006; 32: 989-92
25 Willershausen I, Callaway A, Briseño B, Willershausen B. In vitro analysis of the cytotoxicity and the antimicrobial effect of four endodontic sealers. Head Face Med 2011; 7: 15
26 Mukhtar-Fayyad D. Cytocompatibility of new bioceramic-based materials on human fibroblast cells (MRC-5). Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112: e137-42
27 Zhou HM, Du TF, Shen Y, Wang ZJ, Zheng YF, Haapasalo M. et al. In vitro cytotoxicity of calcium silicate-containing endodontic sealers. J Endod 2015; 41: 56-61
28 Salles LP, Gomes-Cornélio AL, Guimarães FC, Herrera BS, Bao SN, Rossa-Junior C. et al. Mineral trioxide aggregate-based endodontic sealer stimulates hydroxyapatite nucleation in human osteoblast-like cell culture. J Endod 2012; 38: 971-6
29 Huang TH, Yang JJ, Li H, Kao CT. The biocompatibility evaluation of epoxy resin-based root canal sealers in vitro . Biomaterials 2002; 23: 77-83