In vitro cytotoxicity analysis of bioceramic root canal sealers on human gingival fibroblast cells

Cytotoxicity of various bioceramic root canal sealers are not well understood due to the limited scientific data. Previous research focused on comparing the conventional and bioceramic root canal sealers but there was no comparison between the latter. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cytotoxicity of bioceramic root canal sealers and to propose the material that is less cytotoxic for clinical purposes. Bioceramic root canal sealers, such as GuttaFlow Bioseal, MTA Fillapex, CeraSeal Bioceramic root canal sealer and iRoot SP root canal sealer were mixed according to the manufacturers’ instructions and placed into a sterilised cylindrical silicone mold with 5 mm diameter and 3 mm thickness. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was used to analyse changes in the quality and consistency of all the bioceramic root canal sealers. Human gingival fibroblast cells were cultivated and exposed to material extracts for 24 h, 48 h and 72 h in a 5% CO2 humidified incubator at 37 °C. The MTT (3-(4, 5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2, 5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay was conducted to determine cell viability at each incubation period and compared between all the bioceramic root canal sealers. The cell viability was qualitatively graded as severe ( 90%). The data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 25.0. GuttaFlow Bioseal showed less cytotoxicity followed by CeraSeal Bioceramic root canal sealer, iRoot SP root canal sealer, and MTA Fillapex. Clinicians should select bioceramic root canal sealers that have low cytotoxic effects during root canal treatment procedure

In vitro cytotoxicity analysis of bioceramic root canal sealers on human gingival fibroblast cells

Cytotoxicity of various bioceramic root canal sealers are not well understood due to the limited scientific data. Previous research focused on comparing the conventional and bioceramic root canal sealers but there was no comparison between the latter. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cytotoxicity of bioceramic root canal sealers and to propose the material that is less cytotoxic for clinical purposes. Bioceramic root canal sealers, such as GuttaFlow Bioseal, MTA Fillapex, CeraSeal Bioceramic root canal sealer and iRoot SP root canal sealer were mixed according to the manufacturers’ instructions and placed into a sterilised cylindrical silicone mold with 5 mm diameter and 3 mm thickness. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was used to analyse changes in the quality and consistency of all the bioceramic root canal sealers. Human gingival fibroblast cells were cultivated and exposed to material extracts for 24 h, 48 h and 72 h in a 5% CO2 humidified incubator at 37 °C. The MTT (3-(4, 5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2, 5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay was conducted to determine cell viability at each incubation period and compared between all the bioceramic root canal sealers. The cell viability was qualitatively graded as severe ( 90%). The data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 25.0. GuttaFlow Bioseal showed less cytotoxicity followed by CeraSeal Bioceramic root canal sealer, iRoot SP root canal sealer, and MTA Fillapex. Clinicians should select bioceramic root canal sealers that have low cytotoxic effects during root canal treatment procedure

Biocompatibility of Bioceramic Root Canal Sealers: A Review

The advantageous technology in endodontics nowadays are bioceramic root canal sealers. The most favourable characteristics of bioceramics root canal sealers are biocompatibility, osteoinductivity and sealing ability. Advantageous characteristics and good bioceramic outcomes make them increasingly presented in the dental market, suitable for use in endodontics. However, the biocompatibility of recently developed bioceramic root canal sealers is not well understood due to the limited scientific evidence and methodological differences in the previous studies. Literature search was conducted from August 2020 until April 2021 through PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus databases using the combination of terms such as “bioceramic root canal sealers”, “biocompatibility”, “root canal sealer”, “cytotoxicity” and “endodontics” to identify the most relevant articles from year 1991 until 2020. This article aimed to review the bioceramic root canal sealers with regards to the use in endodontics, biocompatibility, and in vivo studies. Bioceramic root canal sealers have a variable toxic potential at the cellular and tissue level, based on the current data. The methodological variability of the studies included in this study, as well as the somewhat contradictory findings, make it impossible to draw a conclusion about which type of bioceramic root canal sealer is more biocompatible. Hence, bioceramic root canal sealers were discovered to be biocompatible and comparable to other commercially available root canal sealers

In vitro cytotoxicity analysis of bioceramic root canal sealers on human gingival fibroblast cells and human osteoblast-like cells

Introduction: Cytotoxicity of bioceramic (BC) root canal sealers (RCS) are not well understood due to the limited scientific data. Previous research focused on comparing the conventional and BC RCS but there was no comparison between the latter. This study aims to evaluate the cytotoxicity of BC RCS and to propose the material that is less cytotoxic for clinical purposes. Methods: GuttaFlow Bioseal, MTA Fillapex, CeraSeal BC RCS and iRoot SP RCS were mixed according to the manufacturers’ instructions and placed into a sterilised cylindrical silicone mold of 5mm diameter and 3mm thickness. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was used to analyse changes in the quality and consistency of all BC RCS. Human gingival fibroblast (hGFC) and osteoblast-like cells (hOLC) were cultivated and exposed to the material extracts for 24 h, 48 h and 72 h in a 5% CO2 humidified incubator at 37 °C. The MTT (3-(4, 5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2, 5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay was conducted to determine cell viability. Cell viability was qualitatively graded as severe ( 90%). Results: GuttaFlow Bioseal showed less cytotoxicity followed by CeraSeal BC RCS, iRoot SP RCS, and MTA Fillapex when exposed to hGFC. The percentage of cell viability for all BC RCS was increased from 24 h to 72 h. When the hOLC were exposed to material extracts, GuttaFlow Bioseal and MTA Fillapex showed inconsistent cytotoxic effects, however GuttaFlow Bioseal appeared to be less cytotoxic than MTA Fillapex. CeraSeal BC RCS and iRoot SP RCS were more cytotoxic throughout all incubation periods. Conclusions: It could be suggested that the cytotoxicity of BC RCS was influenced by the types of materials, incubation periods and types of culture cells. Clinicians should select BC RCS that have low cytotoxic effects during root canal treatment procedure

In vitro cytotoxicity analysis of bioceramic root canal sealers on human gingival fibroblast cells

Cytotoxicity of various bioceramic root canal sealers are not well understood due to the limited scientific data. Previous research focused on comparing the conventional and bioceramic root canal sealers but there was no comparison between the latter. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cytotoxicity of bioceramic root canal sealers and to propose the material that is less cytotoxic for clinical purposes. Bioceramic root canal sealers, such as GuttaFlow Bioseal, MTA Fillapex, CeraSeal Bioceramic root canal sealer and iRoot SP root canal sealer were mixed according to the manufacturers’ instructions and placed into a sterilised cylindrical silicone mold with 5 mm diameter and 3 mm thickness. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was used to analyse changes in the quality and consistency of all the bioceramic root canal sealers. Human gingival fibroblast cells were cultivated and exposed to material extracts for 24 h, 48 h and 72 h in a 5% CO2 humidified incubator at 37 °C. The MTT (3-(4, 5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2, 5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay was conducted to determine cell viability at each incubation period and compared between all the bioceramic root canal sealers. The cell viability was qualitatively graded as severe ( 90%). The data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 25.0. GuttaFlow Bioseal showed less cytotoxicity followed by CeraSeal Bioceramic root canal sealer, iRoot SP root canal sealer, and MTA Fillapex. Clinicians should select bioceramic root canal sealers that have low cytotoxic effects during root canal treatment procedure

In Vitro Cytotoxicity Analysis of Bioceramic Root Canal Sealers on Human Gingival Fibroblast Cells and Human Osteoblast-like Cells

Introduction: Cytotoxicity of bioceramic (BC) root canal sealers (RCS) are not well understood due to the limited scientific data. Previous research focused on comparing the conventional and BC RCS but there was no comparison between the latter. This study aims to evaluate the cytotoxicity of BC RCS and to propose the material that is less cytotoxic for clinical purposes. Methods: GuttaFlow Bioseal, MTA Fillapex, CeraSeal BC RCS and iRoot SP RCS were mixed according to the manufacturers’ instructions and placed into a sterilised cylindrical silicone mold of 5mm diameter and 3mm thickness. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was used to analyse changes in the quality and consistency of all BC RCS. Human gingival fibroblast (hGFC) and osteoblast-like cells (hOLC) were cultivated and exposed to the material extracts for 24 h, 48 h and 72 h in a 5% CO2 humidified incubator at 37 °C. The MTT (3-(4, 5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2, 5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) assay was conducted to determine cell viability. Cell viability was qualitatively graded as severe ( 90%). Results: GuttaFlow Bioseal showed less cytotoxicity followed by CeraSeal BC RCS, iRoot SP RCS, and MTA Fillapex when exposed to hGFC. The percentage of cell viability for all BC RCS was increased from 24 h to 72 h. When the hOLC were exposed to material extracts, GuttaFlow Bioseal and MTA Fillapex showed inconsistent cytotoxic effects, however GuttaFlow Bioseal appeared to be less cytotoxic than MTA Fillapex. CeraSeal BC RCS and iRoot SP RCS were more cytotoxic throughout all incubation periods. Conclusions: It could be suggested that the cytotoxicity of BC RCS was influenced by the types of materials, incubation periods and types of culture cells. Clinicians should select BC RCS that have low cytotoxic effects during root canal treatment procedure