Cytotoxicity and physical properties of tricalcium silicate-based endodontic materials

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxicity, setting time and compressive strength of MTA and two novel tricalcium silicate-based endodontic materials, Bioaggregate (BA) and Biodentine (BD).Materials and MethodsCytotoxicity was evaluated by using a 2,3-bis(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-5-((phenylamino)carbonyl)-2H-tetrazolium hydroxide (XTT) assay. Measurements of 9 heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc) were performed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) of leachates obtained by soaking the materials in distilled water. Setting time and compressive strength tests were performed following ISO requirements.ResultsBA had comparable cell viability to MTA, whereas the cell viability of BD was significantly lower than that of MTA. The ICP-MS analysis revealed that BD released significantly higher amount of 5 heavy metals (arsenic, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc) than MTA and BA. The setting time of BD was significantly shorter than that of MTA and BA, and the compressive strength of BA was significantly lower than that of MTA and BD.ConclusionsBA and BD were biocompatible, and they did not show any cytotoxic effects on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. BA showed comparable cytotoxicity to MTA but inferior physical properties. BD had somewhat higher cytotoxicity but superior physical properties than MTA.

Novel Bioceramic Root Repair Materials: Review of the Literature

“…[10], CS of Biodentine was found to be much higher than that of MTA. Jang et al [8] confirmed that CS of Biodentine is superior to both MTA and BioAggregate. The authors attributed the great results to the low water/ cement ratio.…”

“…According to the majority of this research, there is no statistically significant difference in terms of cytotoxicity between MTA and Biodentine [8], Calcium Enriched Mixture [29], BioAggregate [8] or EndoSequence [30]. However, the research by Jang et al [8] reveals that in comparison to MTA and BioAggregate, Biodentine releases significantly higher amounts of heavy metals (arsenic, copper, iron, manganese and zinc) when soaked in distilled water. Nevertheless, the plausible clinical consequences are not yet clear.…”

“…The compressive strength of CEM is also higher than that of MTA and may be affected by the mixing method [13]. BioAggregate, in turn, compared to other bioceramic materials has the weakest CS results and that is most probably directly associated with the high water-to-powder ratio [8]. As far as EndoSequence is concerned, its compressive strength is significantly higher than white and grey MTA [3].…”

Evaluation of cytotoxicity and gelatinases activity in 3T3 fibroblast cell by root repair materials

“…This result also has agreement with those found in previous studies. [18,28,29] These differences between materials are explained by the differences in the initial amount of various ions released from these materials. One possible explanation of better cell viability and low MMP-2 expression of BioAggregate could be related to the different ingredients of the materials.…”

“…[36] Our results show that MTA-derived materials could enhance the cell viability of 3T3 cells in vitro. Recent studies showed that the cytotoxic effects imposed by Ortho MTA, [26,27] Retro MTA, [37] BioAggregate, [18,28,29] Biodentine, [26,28,38,39] MTA Plus [40] and MTA Angelus exhibited negligible cytotoxicity. [41,42] While the extracts of BioAggregate promoted cell viability, Biodentine showed a reduced number of cells.…”