Endodontology
Online only article
Cytotoxicity evaluation of endosequence root repair material

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.11.028Get rights and content

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxicity of EndoSequence Root Repair Material (Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA) and compare it with gray and white MTA.

Study design

Samples of 2 mg freshly mixed or set gray MTA (GMTA), white MTA (WMTA), EndoSequence Root Repair Material (ERRM), and AH26 were eluted with 300, 600, and 1,000 μL cell culture medium for 24 and 72 hours. L929 cells were seeded into 96-well plates at 3 × 104 cells/well and incubated with 100 μL elute from each elute group. Cells cultured only with culture medium served as negative control. AH26 was used as positive control. After 24 hours' incubation, cell cytotoxicity was evaluated by MTT assay. Cell viability was calculated as percentage of the control group. The results were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variance.

Results

For both set and fresh samples, there were no significant cell viability differences among GMTA, WMTA, and ERRM. Cell viability in the AH26 group was less than in all of the other 3 materials.

Conclusion

This study suggests that ERRM may have cell viability similar to GMTA and WMTA in both set and fresh conditions.

Section snippets

Materials and Methods

L929 mouse fibroblasts were obtained from American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA). Cells were grown in Eagle minimum essential medium (ATCC) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (Hyclone Laboratories, Logan, UT) and 1% antibiotic/antimycotic cocktail (300 U/mL penicillin, 300 mg/mL streptomycin, and 5 mg/mL amphotericin B; Gibco BRL, Gaithersburg, MD) under standard cell culture conditions (37°C, 100% humidity, 95% air/5% CO2).

The materials tested consisted of GMTA (ProRoot;

Fresh material

When cells were cultured with 1-day elute of the freshly mixed materials, there were no significant cell viability differences among GMTA, WMTA, and ERRM in the 300 μL and 600 μL elute groups (Fig. 1). ERRM had more cell viability than GMTA in the 1,000 μL groups (Fig. 1). There were no cell viability differences between GMTA and WMTA or between WMTA and ERRM in the 1,000 μL groups. AH26 had less cell viability than all of the other materials in all of the elute groups (Fig. 1).

When cells were

Discussion

ERRM is described by manufacturer as a bioceramic material. Bioceramic materials are “ceramic products or components employed in medical and dental applications, mainly as implants and replacements, which have osteoinductive properties.”31 Many materials used today in dentistry are considered to be bioceramics, such as zirconia, hydroxyapatite, tricalcium phosphate, tricalcium silicate, and dicalcium silicate.32 According to this definition, both GMTA and WMTA are considered to be bioceramics.

References (36)

  • S. Kim et al.

    Modern endodontic surgery concepts and practice: a review

    J Endod

    (2006)
  • J.A. Lindeboom et al.

    A comparative prospective randomized clinical study of MTA and IRM as root-end filling materials in single-rooted teeth in endodontic surgery

    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod

    (2005)
  • T. Dammaschke et al.

    Chemical and physical surface and bulk material characterization of white ProRoot MTA and two Portland cements

    Dent Mater

    (2005)
  • M. Torabinejad et al.

    Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material

    J Endod

    (1995)
  • J. Saidon et al.

    Cell and tissue reactions to mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement

    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod

    (2003)
  • Q. Zhu et al.

    Adhesion of human osteoblasts on root-end filling materials

    J Endod

    (2000)
  • D.A. Ribeiro et al.

    Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of mineral trioxide aggregate and regular and white Portland cements on Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells in vitro

    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod

    (2006)
  • M. Gorduysus et al.

    Cytotoxic effects of four different endodontic materials in human periodontal ligament fibroblasts

    J Endod

    (2007)

    • Cited by (85)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text
    Copyright © 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.