J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Apr 01;9(4):e574-e578. doi: 10.4317/jced.53724. eCollection 2017 Apr.
Comparative cytotoxicity evaluation of eight root canal sealers.
Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry
Claudio Poggio, Paolo Riva, Marco Chiesa, Marco Colombo, Giampiero Pietrocola
Affiliations
Affiliations
- Department of Clinical-Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences - Section of Dentistry, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
- Departement of Molecular Medicine, Unit of Biochemistry, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
PMID: 28469826
PMCID: PMC5410681 DOI: 10.4317/jced.53724
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to evaluate and compare the cytotoxic effects of eight root canal sealers (BioRoot RCS, TotalFill BC Sealer, MTA Fillapex, Sealapex, AH Plus, EasySeal, Pulp Canal Sealer, N2) on immortalized human gingival fibroblasts over a period of 24, 48 and 72 hours.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Immortalized human gingival fibroblast-1 HGF-1 (ATCC CRL-2014) were incubated. Root canal sealers were then placed into sterile, cylindrical Teflon moulds. The extraction was made eluting the sealers in cell culture medium. Cells (1 × 104) were seeded in each well of a 96-well plate and incubated for 24 h at 37°C. Cultures were then exposed to 100 μL of the extracts medium. The percentage of viable cells in each well was calculated relative to control cells set to 100%.
RESULTS: BioRoot RCS and TotalFill BC Sealer extracted for 24h showed no cytotoxic effect, while it was mild by using 48 and 72 h extracts. No cytotoxic effect was measured by using AH Plus medium eluted for 24 h, while it was moderate after 48 h and severe after 72 h. Pulp Canal Sealer, Sealapex and N2 showed moderately cytotoxic activity for all the extraction times. EasySeal and MTA Fillapex remained severely or borderline mildly cytotoxic for all the extraction times.
CONCLUSIONS: In the present study only BioRoot RCS, TotalFill BC Sealer and AH Plus showed no cytotoxic effects at least in the first 24h. All the other sealers revealed moderately or severely cytotoxic activity during all the extraction times.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest statement:The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exist.
References
- Int Endod J. 2016 Sep 26;:null - PubMed
- Int Endod J. 2015 Aug 17;:null - PubMed
- Int Endod J. 1998 Nov;31(6):394-409 - PubMed
- J Endod. 2013 Feb;39(2):274-7 - PubMed
- Int Endod J. 2007 May;40(5):329-37 - PubMed
- J Appl Oral Sci. 2009 Sep-Oct;17(5):457-61 - PubMed
- Int Endod J. 2003 Jan;36(1):44-8 - PubMed
- Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Jul 26;:null - PubMed
- J Appl Oral Sci. 2013 Jan-Feb;21(1):43-7 - PubMed
- J Endod. 2015 Jan;41(1):56-61 - PubMed
- Int Endod J. 2017 Jan;50(1):67-76 - PubMed
- J Endod. 2015 Sep;41(9):1469-73 - PubMed
- J Endod. 1995 Jul;21(7):349-53 - PubMed
- Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006 Oct;102(4):e115-20 - PubMed
- Braz Dent J. 2013;24(2):111-6 - PubMed
Publication Types