Comparison of biocompatibility of four root perforation repair materials

Abstract

This study was carried out in order to determine in vitro biocompatibility of white mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), and to compare it with that of the commonly used materials, i. e. calcium hydroxide liner (Dycal), glass ionomer cement (GIC), and Portland cement which has a similar composition of MTA. To assess the biocompatibility of each material, cytotoxicity was examined using MG-63 cells. The degree of cytotoxicity was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and a colorimetric method, based on reduction of the tetrazolium salt 2,3 bis {2methoxy 4nitro 5[(sulfenylamino) carbonyl] 2H tetrazolium hydroxide} (XTT) assay.The results of SEM revealed the cells in contact with GIC, MTA, and Portland cement at 1 and 3 days were apparently healthy. In contrast, cells in the presence of Dycal appeared rounded and detached. In XTT assay, the cellular activities of the cells incubated with all the test materials except Dycal were similar, which corresponded with the SEM observation. The present study supports the view that MTA is a very biocompatible root perforation repair material. It also suggests that cellular response of Portland cement and GIC are very similar to that of MTA. [J Kor Acad Cons Dent 34(3):192-198, 2009]

Physical and chemical properties of experimental mixture of mineral trioxide aggregate and glass ionomer cement

“…To be clinically feasible, further investigations are necessary to find the proper mixing ratio in order to improve the drawbacks of MTA without impairing the pre-existing advantages and to assess the biocompatibility. •황인남 1,5 •오원만 …”

“…[3][4][5][6][7] MTA has been shown to have the least cytotoxicity compared to other materials and to promote cementum formation and apical root closures. 8 MTA was also found to be the most effective material in preventing leakage 9 as a perforation repair material and a root-end filling material.…”

Biocompatibility of experimental mixture of mineral trioxide aggregate and glass ionomer cement

“…Low toxicity of MTA and GIC has been already well documented. 3,6,7,14,15 Research on the biocompatibility of GICs in conventional and surgical endodontics exhibit good biocompatibility for three main reasons: (i) they set with minimal exotherm; (ii) neutralization is generally sufficiently rapid that any potential irritation because of the presence of free acid is minimal; and (iii) the substances leached from the set cement are generally either benign or beneficial to the tissue in which the cement is placed. 15 Good biocompatibility of GIC is also presented in the result of this study.…”

“…6 In an in vitro study assessing cell viability on the surface of MTA, MTA showed low cytotoxicity similar to control group. 7 Koh et al reported that MTA offers a biologically active substrate for bone cells and stimulates interleukin production. 8 In animal studies, MTA proved to be more biocompatible to pulp tissue than calcium hydroxide and calcium sulfate as pulp capping material.…”

“…3 The biocompatibility of MTA has been assessed in many studies. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Calcium hydroxide which is biocompatible with tissue, is the main compound released by MTA in water. 3 The results of an in vitro study showed that MTA was less toxic than amalgam, SuperEBA and IRM.…”