Evaluation of cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of two resin-based root-canal sealers and their components on human leucocytes in vitro

Baraba, Anja; Želježić, Davor; Kopjar, Nevenka; Mladinić, Marin; Anić, Ivica; Miletić, Ivana

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01869.x

Cited by 23 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies have corroborated these findings, showing that Epiphany or Real Seal was cytotoxic at the 24-hour time interval. 8,11,21,22 However, in contrast to our results, other authors 23 found that the cytotoxicity of this material increases with time. It is important to note, however, that the longest time used in other works was considerably lower than those used in the present methodology.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…Additionally, cytotoxicity could be attributed to the triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate (TEG-DMA) component. 8,11,[21][22][23] In contrast to the present results, Merdad et al 13 demonstrated that freshly mixed Epiphany (0 h) showed a moderate cytotoxic effect, undetectable at 24 h. The probable reason for this discrepancy is the different methodologies and cells used, since the authors used Millipore filters in direct or indirect contact with HeLa cells. The present research ascertained the cytotoxicity of RealSeal without Resilon, despite the possibility of overfilling due to the large surface of contact between the resin and the surrounding tissue.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of time of extraction on the biocompatibility of endodontic sealers with primary human fibroblasts

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work was to evaluate the effects of different times of extraction on the cytotoxicity of six representatives of different root canal sealer groups-Real Seal SE, AH Plus, GuttaFlow, Sealapex, Roth 801, and ThermaSeal Plus-with human gingival fibroblasts. The materials were prepared according to manufacturers' specifications, and were incubated in culture medium (DMEM) at 37°C for 1, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days, with daily washing, to simulate periodontal ligament clearance. Human fibroblasts were exposed to the final extracts at 24 hours, and cell viability was determined by MTT assay, with exposure to unconditioned DMEM as a negative control. Statistical analysis comparing cytotoxicities at each exposure time was performed by ANOVA with Scheffé adjustment for multiple comparisons at a 95% confidence level. Results indicated that GuttaFlow was significantly less cytotoxic than all other sealers (p < 0.05) at 1 day of extraction. After 7 days of extraction, cell viability for GuttaFlow was significantly increased as compared with that of all groups except sealer AH Plus. At day 14, cytotoxicity of Sealapex was significantly higher than that of all other sealers (p < 0.05). At days 21 and 28, there were no significant differences in cytotoxicity among sealer groups. All materials presented some level of cytotoxicity to fibroblasts, while GuttaFlow was the least cytotoxic sealer tested. However, the cytotoxicity of all materials seemed to decrease similarly in a time-dependent manner.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

Effect of time of extraction on the biocompatibility of endodontic sealers with primary human fibroblasts

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the monocyte-macrophage system plays a key function on tissue remodelling and the inflammatory process, every effect of root canal filling materials on the functionality of such cells has to be considered (23). Therefore, the possible clinical effects of the alteration of basal ROS production in monocyte-macrophage function need further investigations by both clinicians and researchers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility of Root Canal Filling Materials: Differences between Vitality and Functionality Tests

Testarelli

Nocca²,

Lupi

et al. 2012

Eur J Inflamm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biocompatibility of root canal filling materials is of great interest because they can come into permanent contact with the living periapical tissue, and induce mild or severe inflammatory responses. Usually biocompatibility tests only determine non-cytotoxic effects of dental materials, even if their functional interactions with cells also play a role in the host responses. The purpose of this study is to evaluate peripheral blood monocyte (PBM) vitality and functionality after contact with 5 different root canal filling materials: Thermafil (gutta-percha), Real Seal and Real Seal 1 (methacrylic resins), AureoSeal (MTA) and SuperSeal (EBA). Cellular vitality was determined by MTT test and cellular functionality by Chemiluminescence (CL) technique. Dishes of the materials were covered with cell culture medium (0.5 cm2/mL) and incubated for 24 h. The extracts were added to PBMs and the latter, after 2 h of incubation, were analysed by MTT and by Chemiluminescence (CL). All results are expressed as mean ± SEM. The group means were compared by analysis of variance. Results showed that SuperSeal and AuroSeal exhibited a moderate cytotoxic effect, while the toxicity induced by RealSeal, RealSeal 1 and Thermafil was lower. SuperSeal and AuroSeal induced a significant decrease of both oxidative burst and basal reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. RealSeal 1 caused a doubling of basal ROS production in respect to control. The results demonstrate that a low cytotoxic effect does not guarantee a total integrity of cellular functionality and more differences among biocompatibility of root canal materials can be detected when a functionality test is used.

show abstract

“…111 However, it has also been demonstrated that although Epiphany was cytotoxic it did not effect the viability of human leucocytes. 112 The reported cytotoxicity may be due to the leakage of uncured monomer from the oxygen inhibition layer, 100,101,113,114 or due to the degradation of the sealer in an aqueous environment. [115][116][117] The Bis-GMA and UDMA contained within the Epiphany bonding agent are another potential source of cytotoxicity.…”

Section: Biocompatibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Root canal filling using Resilon: a review

Shanahan

Duncan

2011

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of two resin-based root-canal sealers and their components on human leucocytes in vitro

Abstract: Primer and thinning resin of both resin-based root canal sealers and their combinations were cytotoxic and induced apoptosis. Both sealants had no significant effect on the viability of the human leucocytes.

Cited by 23 publications

References 40 publications

Effect of time of extraction on the biocompatibility of endodontic sealers with primary human fibroblasts

Effect of time of extraction on the biocompatibility of endodontic sealers with primary human fibroblasts

Biocompatibility of Root Canal Filling Materials: Differences between Vitality and Functionality Tests

Root canal filling using Resilon: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About