CODS - Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2023)
Volume  14 (2022)
Volume  13 (2021)
Volume  12 (2020)
Volume  11 (2019)
Volume  10 (2018)
Volume  9 (2017)
Volume  8 (2016)
Volume  7 (2015)
Volume  6 (2014)
Volume  5 (2013)
Volume  4 (2012)
Volume  3 (2011)
Volume  2 (2010)
Volume  1 (2009)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Cytotoxicity and Cell Viability of Two Bioactive Root Canal Sealers, Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, and BioRoot Root Canal Sealer: An In Vitro Study

Emmanuel Samson, Lata B Gangurde, Jaiprakash R Rathod, Pradnya S Jadhav, Sangeeta Ambhore, Pranav S Jadhav

Keywords : BioRoot-RCS, MTA, MTT assay, Scanning electron microscope

Citation Information : Samson E, Gangurde LB, Rathod JR, Jadhav PS, Ambhore S, Jadhav PS. Cytotoxicity and Cell Viability of Two Bioactive Root Canal Sealers, Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, and BioRoot Root Canal Sealer: An In Vitro Study. CODS J Dent 2022; 14 (2):57-60.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10063-0139

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-10-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to perform a comparative assessment of cytotoxicity and cell viability of two bioactive root canal sealers (RCS), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), and BioRoot-RCS. Materials and methods: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and BioRoot-RCS are based on calcium silicate composition, MTA sealer (Brasselers, Savannah, Georgia, United States of America) is a premixed injectable material based on calcium silicate, BioRoot-RCS (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France). Powder: Tricalcium silicate zirconium oxide and povidine. Liquid, water, calcium chloride, and polycarboxylate. Cytotoxicity of these two bioactive sealers was assessed by Metabolic Activity Assay (MTT) reduction test, where human gingival fibroblast (HGF) where used; this method enables determination of cell viability and proliferation on the basis of mitochondrial activity of succinate dehydrogenase, days 1–7 were studied, while the cell viability (survival percentage) was measured on 1, 3, 5, and 7 days. Result: The result between the two BioRoot-RCS showed higher cell viability or fibroblastic survival percentage and low cytotoxicity for BioRoot-RCS in comparison with MTA-RCS. Conclusion: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and BioRoot-RCS both show moderate cytotoxicity. However, BioRoot-RCS is considered the most compatible root canal sealer showing a higher percentage of cell viability as compared to MTA.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Hollanda AC, Estrela CR, Silva JA, et al. Sealing ability of three commercial resin-based endodontic sealers. Gen Dent 2009;57(4):368–373. PMID: 19903617.
  2. Taraslia V, Anastasiadou E, Lignou C, et al. Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers. Eur J Dent 2018;12(2):287–291. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_9_18
  3. Jung S, Sielker S, Hanisch MR, et al. Cytotoxic effects of four different root canal sealers on human osteoblasts. PLoS One 2018;13(3):e0194467. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194467
  4. Badole GP, Warhadpande MM, Meshram GK, et al. A comparative evaluation of cytotoxicity of root canal sealers: an in vitro study. Restor Dent Endod 2013;38(4):204–249. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2013.38.4.204
  5. Geros RZ, Chahayeb A, Shulman A. Apatite calcium phosphates: possible dental restauration materials. J Dent Res 1982;61:343–347.
  6. Krell KF, Wefel JS. A calcium phosphate cement root canal sealer—scanning electron microscopic analysis. J Endod 1984;10(12):571–576. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(84)80103-X
  7. Loushine BA, Bryan TE, Looney SW, et al. Setting properties and cytotoxicity evaluation of a premixed bioceramic root canal sealer. J Endod 2011;37(5):673–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.01.003
  8. Lee JK, Kim S, Lee S, et al. In vitro comparison of biocompatibility of calcium silicate-based root canal sealers. Materials (Basel) 2019;12(15):2411. DOI: 10.3390/ma12152411
  9. Camps J, Jeanneau C, El Ayachi I, et al. Bioactivity of a calcium silicate–based endodontic cement (BioRoot RCS): interactions with human periodontal ligament cells in vitro. J Endod 2015;41(9):1469–1473. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.04.011
  10. Dimitrova-Nakov S, Uzunoglu E, Ardila-Osorio H, et al. In vitro bioactivity of Bioroot™ RCS, via A4 mouse pulpal stem cells. Dent Mater 2015;31(11):1290–1297. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.08.163
  11. Eldeniz AU, Shehata M, Högg C, et al. DNA double-strand breaks caused by new and contemporary endodontic sealers. Int Endod J 2016;49(12):1141–1451. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12577
  12. Bernáth M, Szabó J. Tissue reaction initiated by different sealers. Int Endod J 2003;36(4):256–261. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00662.x
  13. Brackett MG, Marshall A, Lockwood PE, et al. Cytotoxicity of endodontic materials over 6-weeks ex vivo. Int Endod J 2008;41(12):1072–1078. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01471.x
  14. Karapınar-Kazandağ M, Bayrak OF, Yalvaç ME, et al. Cytotoxicity of 5 endodontic sealers on L929 cell line and human dental pulp cells. Int Endod J 2011;44(7):626–634. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01863.x
  15. Al-Hiyasat AS, Tayyar M, Darmani H. Cytotoxicity evaluation of various resin based root canal sealers. Int Endod J 2010;43(2):148–153. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01669.x
  16. Reszka P, Nowicka A, Lipski M, et al. A comparative chemical study of calcium silicate-containing and epoxy resin-based root canal sealers. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:9808432. DOI: 10.1155/2016/9808432
  17. Azar NG, Heidari M, Bahrami ZS, et al. In vitro cytotoxicity of a new epoxy resin root canal sealer. J Endod 2000;26(8):462–465. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200008000-00008
  18. Bouillaguet S, Wataha JC, Tay FR, et al. Initial in vitro biological response to contemporary endodontic sealers. J Endod 2006;32(10):989–992. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.05.006
  19. Eldeniz AU, Mustafa K, Ørstavik D, et al. 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(5):329–337. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01211.x
  20. Lodienė G, Morisbak E, Bruzell E, et al. Toxicity evaluation of root canal sealers in vitro. Int Endod J 2008;41(1):72–77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01321.x
  21. Oztan MD, Yilmaz S, Kalayci A, et al. A comparison of the in vitro cytotoxicity of two root canal sealers. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(4): 426–429. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01053.x
  22. Scotti R, Tiozzo R, Parisi C, et al. Biocompatibility of various root canal filling materials ex vivo. Int Endod J 2008;41(8):651–657. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01403.x
  23. Susini G, About I, Tran-Hung L, et al. Cytotoxicity of Epiphany® and Resilon® with a root model. Int Endod J 2006;39(12):940–944. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01167.x
  24. Vouzara T, Dimosiari G, Koulaouzidou EA, et al. Cytotoxicity of a new calcium silicate endodontic sealer. J Endod 2018;44(5):849–852. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.01.015
  25. Eldeniz AU, Shehata M, Högg C, et al. DNA double-strand breaks caused by new and contemporary endodontic sealers. Int Endod J 2016;49(12):1141–1151. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12577
  26. Collado-González M, García-Bernal D, Oñate-Sánchez RE, et al. Biocompatibility of three new calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers on human periodontal ligament stem cells. Int Endod J 2017;50:875–884. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12703
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.