Effects of two bioactive materials on survival and osteoblastic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells

Abstract

Objectives:Activation of mineralization process in periradicular tissues following the injuries, is important in repair mechanisms. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of CEM cement on survival and mineralization of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) and compare it with MTA.Materials and Methods:hMSCs that were planted on test material extracts and culture media were the experimental and control groups, respectively. The cytotoxicity of these materials was investigated using Methyl thiazol tetrazolium assay. After 7 days, alizarin red staining, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) assays, and qRT-PCR were used to assess the mineralization, expression of ALP, and gene expression (collagen type 1 and osteocalcin), respectively. The results were evaluated by ANOVA analysis and multiple comparisons test. P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.Results:Cell viability was not significantly different. Alizarin red and alkaline phosphatase staining showed mineralization in all three groups. In qRT-PCR, the expression of collagen type 1 is not significantly different among the three groups. Osteocalcin gene expression was significantly higher in the CEM group compared to the control (P < 0.05).Conclusion:CEM cement has acceptable toxicity and could induce mineralization process and enhance osteocalcin gene expression which is associated with mineralization in hMSCs.

Evaluation of dental pulp stem cells behavior after odontogenic differentiation induction by three different bioactive materials on two different scaffolds

“…Regarding the bioactive material in the current study, we believe that the most convenient method is the material extraction method, instead of direct contact between the bioactive materials and DPSCs, to avoid crushing or abrasion of the DPSCs seeded in the scaffolds, which is in agreement with the results of Hengameh et al [ 24 ] and Jun et al [ 9 ].…”

“…After incubation of the prepared materials, 1 mL of DMEM was added to each well and incubated at 37 °C and 95% relative humidity for 24 h. Aliquots were then extracted and treated every 3 days with this solution [ 24 ].…”

The Effect of Three Different Biomaterials on Proliferation and Viability of Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells (In-vitro Study)

“…The culture of DPSCs in direct contact with standard cylinders of tested biomaterials combined the evaluation of the effect of the biomaterial itself and extracted components on hydration. In our opinion, it is better than using the insert-well system [ 15 , 16 ] or the material elutes [ 17 , 18 ] models that are limited in that it can only measure the effects of the extracted out components of the material ignoring the effect of non-extracted components and surface structure. Additionally, the effect of DM on DPSCs was compared to other tested biomaterials to evaluate the effect of cell differentiation on proliferation and viability.…”

Advanced bioactive nanomaterials for biomedical applications

“…[1] Compared with traditional biomaterials, a significant characteristic of bioactive materials is their bioactivities. [2][3][4][5][6] In general, the bioactivities provided by bioactive materials include the capability of bonding hard or soft tissues, [7] stimulating cell adhesion, differentiation, and proliferation, [8][9][10][11] mimicking the bio-matrix for tissue regeneration, [12] recognizing specific proteins and/or cells for biomimetics, releasing bioactive ions or molecules, [13,14] catalytic activities, [15,16] and targeted drug delivery. [17] With these properties, bioactive materials show great potentials of changing cellular behaviors and functions and eliciting specific responses from living tissues for diagnostics, therapeutics, and regenerative medicine.…”