Genotoxicity of root canal sealers: a literature review

Costa, Fábio Miguel Dos Santos; Fernandes, Maria Helena; Medeiros, Sílvia Regina Batistuzzo de

doi:10.1007/s00784-020-03478-z

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the genotoxicity experiments differed from those of the cytotoxicity assays, which is in agreement with the results of previous studies [35,36]. There are conflicting opinions regarding the genotoxicity of resin-based sealers [36][37][38][39]. Candeiro et al noted that AH Plus ® is significantly more genotoxic than other sealers [40]; however, Van Landuyt et al concluded that there is no evidence of DNA double-strand breaks caused by the four types of endodontic sealers [35].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Epoxy Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers before and after Setting Procedures

Kim

Hayashi

et al. 2022

Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Epoxy resin-based sealers are commonly used for successful endodontic treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of epoxy resin-based sealers under unset and set conditions. Three epoxy resin-based sealers were used: Adseal, AH Plus, and Dia-Proseal. To test cytotoxicity, an agar overlay test and a 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5 diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay were performed using unset and set sealers on L929 mouse fibroblasts. The genotoxicity test of the comet assay was performed using the same cell line. Extract dilutions in the culture media were used as test materials for the MTT and comet assays. The comet tail produced by the damaged DNA was calculated by image analyses. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc test. Unset sealers did not show defined decolorized areas. Hardened specimens of resin-based sealers showed circular discolored zones in the agar overlay test. Dia-Proseal was the least cytotoxic after hardening. These results were confirmed in the MTT assay. Cell viability was significantly higher in cells treated with hardened sealers in both groups than that in cells treated with freshly mixed sealers in the MTT assay. Unset AH Plus® and Dia-Proseal™ significantly increased cell viability with decreasing dilution. Adseal™ was the least cytotoxic. Freshly mixed Adseal™ was more genotoxic when freshly mixed than when set. Unset epoxy resin-based sealers were generally more cytotoxic and genotoxic than set materials. Cytotoxicity does not always match the genotoxicity results; therefore, various test tools are required to test toxicity. It is necessary to properly evaluate the toxic effects to establish a biocompatibility test that mimics clinical conditions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Epoxy Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers before and after Setting Procedures

Kim

Hayashi

et al. 2022

Life

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, analyses to determine the biological characteristics of biomaterials are crucial since they maintain contact with different cells and tissue, specifically dental pulp, periodontal ligament, and bone 17 . Among those characteristics, the absence of harmful effects and genetics consequences must be considered, explaining the benefit of the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity assays as initial analyses to indicate the use of new biomaterials 18 , 19 . Contemplating on these parameters, the present study is important to certify the clinical application of BCR, a reformulated material 14 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of Bio-C Repair, Endosequence BC Root Repair, MTA Angelus and MTA Repair HP

Abrão,

Gregorio,

Azevedo

et al. 2023

Braz. Dent. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim was to evaluate in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of Bio-C Repair (BCR), compared to Endosequence BC Root Repair (ERRM), MTA Angelus (MTA-Ang), and MTA Repair HP (MTA-HP). MC3T3 osteoblastic cells were exposed to extracts of the repairing bioceramic cements. After 1, 3, and 7 days, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity were evaluated by MTT and Micronucleus tests, respectively. Cells not exposed to biomaterials were used as a negative control. Data were compared using ANOVA two-way, followed by the Tukey Test (α=5%). MTA-Ang and MTA-HP showed no difference in relation to control regarding cytotoxicity in any experimental times. BCR and ERRM reduced cell viability after 3 and 7 days (p<0.05); however, the reduction caused by BCR was less than that caused by ERRM. Considering the micronucleus formation, all biomaterials caused an increase after 3 and 7 days (p<0.05), being greater for the BCR and ERRM groups. It can be concluded that BCR is non-cytotoxic in osteoblastic cells, as well as MTA-Ang e MTA Repair HP. BCR and ERRM showed greater genotoxicity than others tested biomaterials.

show abstract

“…The probability of direct and interfacial contact between root canal sealers and periradicular tissues foreground the importance of assessing their biological properties [ 7 ]. Their interaction with periradicular cells can slow down the healing process of apical periodontitis [ 8 , 9 ] or act as bioactive stimulators of periapical healing and hard tissue formation [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subcutaneous Implantation Assessment of New Calcium-Silicate Based Sealer for Warm Obturation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calcium silicate-based sealers were recently introduced as a new class of endodontic sealers, with potential further benefits due to their bioactivity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility of two new hydraulic calcium silicate-based sealers, TotalFill BC Sealer (FKG, La Chaux-des-Fonds, Switzerland) and TotalFill BC Sealer HiFlow (FKG, La Chaux-des-Fonds, Switzerland) through subcutaneous implantation in connective tissue of rats. Subcutaneous implantation was performed in 16 young Wistar rats. Four polyethylene tubes were implanted in each animal, one empty to serve as a control, and three filled with tested sealers: AH Plus as reference (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), TotalFill BC Sealer (BC) and TotalFill BC Sealer HiFlow (HiFlow). Eight rats were euthanized at 8 days and the remaining eight at 30 days. Hematoxylin-eosin staining was used to score the inflammatory reaction, macrophage infiltrate and to measure the thickness of the fibrous capsule. von Kossa staining was performed to evaluate the mineralization level. Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post hoc test was used to analyze non-parametric data. To analyze the influence of the implantation time within each material, a Mann–Whitney U test was performed. At eight days post-implantation, AH Plus induced a more intense inflammatory reaction when compared both with the control (p ≤ 0.001) and BC (p ≤ 0.01). HiFlow presented a higher score of macrophage infiltrate than control (p ≤ 0.01) and BC (p ≤ 0.05). The fibrous capsule thickness in this period was significantly higher for the BC group when compared to control (p ≤ 0.01) and AH Plus (p ≤ 0.05). The mineralization potential was higher for the HiFlow group when compared with the control (p ≤ 0.001) and AH Plus (p ≤ 0.001). At 30 days post-implantation, the score for the inflammatory reaction remained higher for the AH Plus group when compared both to control (p ≤ 0.01) and BC (p ≤ 0.001). The macrophage infiltrate of the HiFlow was significantly higher than control (p ≤ 0.001) and AH Plus groups (p ≤ 0.01), additionally, the fibrous capsule of the BC (p ≤ 0.001) and HiFlow (p ≤ 0.01) groups were both thicker than control. Mineralization potential was observed only on BC (p ≤ 0.05) and HiFlow groups (p ≤ 0.001), when compared to control). BC exhibited the best biocompatibility performance of all tested sealers and HiFlow provided the greatest induction of mineralized tissues. Both TotalFill BC Sealer and TotalFill BC Sealer HiFlow are biocompatible and show potential bioactivity when implanted in the subcutaneous tissue. Bioactivity was not found in AH Plus.

show abstract

Genotoxicity of root canal sealers: a literature review

Cited by 14 publications

References 86 publications

Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Epoxy Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers before and after Setting Procedures

Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Epoxy Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers before and after Setting Procedures

Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of Bio-C Repair, Endosequence BC Root Repair, MTA Angelus and MTA Repair HP

Subcutaneous Implantation Assessment of New Calcium-Silicate Based Sealer for Warm Obturation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About