Cargando…

Cytotoxicity of Cold Ceramic Compared with MTA and IRM

INTRODUCTION: Biocompatibility is a desirable feature for root-end filling materials. In this study we aimed to compare a new material called cold ceramic (CC) with intermediate restorative material (IRM) and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) using Methyl-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. MATERIALS AN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mozayeni, Mohammad Ali, Salem Milani, Amin, Alim Marvasti, Laleh, Mashadi Abbas, Fatemeh, Modaresi, Seyed Jalil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Iranian Center for Endodontic Research 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24003331
_version_ 1782477176953634816
author Mozayeni, Mohammad Ali
Salem Milani, Amin
Alim Marvasti, Laleh
Mashadi Abbas, Fatemeh
Modaresi, Seyed Jalil
author_facet Mozayeni, Mohammad Ali
Salem Milani, Amin
Alim Marvasti, Laleh
Mashadi Abbas, Fatemeh
Modaresi, Seyed Jalil
author_sort Mozayeni, Mohammad Ali
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Biocompatibility is a desirable feature for root-end filling materials. In this study we aimed to compare a new material called cold ceramic (CC) with intermediate restorative material (IRM) and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) using Methyl-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The materials were tested in fresh and set states: (n=108). The cytotoxicity was compared using L929 fibroblasts as an indicator; tested materials were eluted with culture medium according to ISO: 109935 standard. Distilled water and culture medium served as positive and negative controls, respectively (n=36). The results were evaluated at 1, 24 hours and 7 days. Data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA for each time interval and material status and t-tests. RESULTS: The cytotoxicity of the tested materials were statistically different at the various time intervals (P<0.001). IRM was the most cytotoxic root-end filling material (P<0.001), MTA demonstrated the least cytotoxicity followed by CC. CONCLUSION: Despite displaying the greatest cytotoxicity, IRM is approved by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Cold ceramic had significantly lower cytotoxicity compared to IRM, in all but one subgroup. Further investigations are required to assess the clinical applicability of this novel material.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3758861
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Iranian Center for Endodontic Research
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37588612013-09-03 Cytotoxicity of Cold Ceramic Compared with MTA and IRM Mozayeni, Mohammad Ali Salem Milani, Amin Alim Marvasti, Laleh Mashadi Abbas, Fatemeh Modaresi, Seyed Jalil Iran Endod J Original Article INTRODUCTION: Biocompatibility is a desirable feature for root-end filling materials. In this study we aimed to compare a new material called cold ceramic (CC) with intermediate restorative material (IRM) and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) using Methyl-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The materials were tested in fresh and set states: (n=108). The cytotoxicity was compared using L929 fibroblasts as an indicator; tested materials were eluted with culture medium according to ISO: 109935 standard. Distilled water and culture medium served as positive and negative controls, respectively (n=36). The results were evaluated at 1, 24 hours and 7 days. Data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA for each time interval and material status and t-tests. RESULTS: The cytotoxicity of the tested materials were statistically different at the various time intervals (P<0.001). IRM was the most cytotoxic root-end filling material (P<0.001), MTA demonstrated the least cytotoxicity followed by CC. CONCLUSION: Despite displaying the greatest cytotoxicity, IRM is approved by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Cold ceramic had significantly lower cytotoxicity compared to IRM, in all but one subgroup. Further investigations are required to assess the clinical applicability of this novel material. Iranian Center for Endodontic Research 2009-07-06 2009 /pmc/articles/PMC3758861/ /pubmed/24003331 Text en © 2009, Iranian Center for Endodontic Research This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Mozayeni, Mohammad Ali
Salem Milani, Amin
Alim Marvasti, Laleh
Mashadi Abbas, Fatemeh
Modaresi, Seyed Jalil
Cytotoxicity of Cold Ceramic Compared with MTA and IRM
title Cytotoxicity of Cold Ceramic Compared with MTA and IRM
title_full Cytotoxicity of Cold Ceramic Compared with MTA and IRM
title_fullStr Cytotoxicity of Cold Ceramic Compared with MTA and IRM
title_full_unstemmed Cytotoxicity of Cold Ceramic Compared with MTA and IRM
title_short Cytotoxicity of Cold Ceramic Compared with MTA and IRM
title_sort cytotoxicity of cold ceramic compared with mta and irm
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24003331
work_keys_str_mv AT mozayenimohammadali cytotoxicityofcoldceramiccomparedwithmtaandirm
AT salemmilaniamin cytotoxicityofcoldceramiccomparedwithmtaandirm
AT alimmarvastilaleh cytotoxicityofcoldceramiccomparedwithmtaandirm
AT mashadiabbasfatemeh cytotoxicityofcoldceramiccomparedwithmtaandirm
AT modaresiseyedjalil cytotoxicityofcoldceramiccomparedwithmtaandirm