Cargando…
Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers
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™ RCS in comparison to conventional epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) and zinc oxide-eugenol-based (Roth's 801) sealers. MATERIALS AND ME...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6004808/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29988252 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_9_18 |
_version_ | 1783332587834441728 |
---|---|
author | Taraslia, Vassiliki Anastasiadou, Ema Lignou, Christina Keratiotis, Georgios Agrafioti, Anastasia Kontakiotis, Evangelos G. |
author_facet | Taraslia, Vassiliki Anastasiadou, Ema Lignou, Christina Keratiotis, Georgios Agrafioti, Anastasia Kontakiotis, Evangelos G. |
author_sort | Taraslia, Vassiliki |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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™ 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6004808 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60048082018-07-09 Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers Taraslia, Vassiliki Anastasiadou, Ema Lignou, Christina Keratiotis, Georgios Agrafioti, Anastasia Kontakiotis, Evangelos G. Eur J Dent Original Article 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™ 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. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6004808/ /pubmed/29988252 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_9_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 European Journal of Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Taraslia, Vassiliki Anastasiadou, Ema Lignou, Christina Keratiotis, Georgios Agrafioti, Anastasia Kontakiotis, Evangelos G. Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers |
title | Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers |
title_full | Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers |
title_fullStr | Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers |
title_short | Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers |
title_sort | assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6004808/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29988252 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ejd.ejd_9_18 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tarasliavassiliki assessmentofcellviabilityinfournovelendodonticsealers AT anastasiadouema assessmentofcellviabilityinfournovelendodonticsealers AT lignouchristina assessmentofcellviabilityinfournovelendodonticsealers AT keratiotisgeorgios assessmentofcellviabilityinfournovelendodonticsealers AT agrafiotianastasia assessmentofcellviabilityinfournovelendodonticsealers AT kontakiotisevangelosg assessmentofcellviabilityinfournovelendodonticsealers |