Quality of cellular attachment to various root-end filling materials

Objectives This study investigated cellular attachment to 6 root-end filling materials as a measure of the biocompatibility of the materials. Material and Methods Class I retrograde cavities were prepared in root slices and these cavities were filled with the test materials, and incubated with Balb/C 3T3 fibroblasts for 24 h. Root slices with the cavities left empty served as the controls. The root slices were then processed for scanning electron microscopy, and were viewed to assess the quality of cellular attachment by observing the shape of cells, spread, and membrane outline. Results The best cellular attachment was observed at MTA and Geristore surfaces: cells exhibited characteristic elongated fibroblastic morphology, with projections of lamellipodia, filopodia, blebs, and microvilli from their surfaces, reflecting good attachment to the material. Fibroblasts attached poorly to the surfaces of IRM, Super EBA, KetacFil and Retroplast. Furthermore, the cells did not attach well to the tooth structure next to IRM and Super EBA. Conclusions The present study demonstrated a variation in cellular attachment to different root-end filling materials with the best cellular attachment to the surfaces of MTA and Geristore. IRM and Super EBA, Ketac Fil and Retroplast rendered poor attachment.

[1]  I. Mello,et al.  Attachment of cultured fibroblasts and ultrastructural analysis of simulated cervical resorptions treated with high-power lasers and MTA. , 2010, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[2]  J. Hebling,et al.  CYTOTOXICITY AND BIOCOMPATIBILITY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT PULP CAPPING MATERIALS , 2009, Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB.

[3]  S. Fidel,et al.  L929 cell response to root perforation repair cements: an in vitro cytotoxicity assay. , 2009, Brazilian dental journal.

[4]  H. Darmani,et al.  The effects of six root-end filling materials and their leachable components on cell viability. , 2008, Journal of endodontics.

[5]  H. Needleman.  Mineral trioxide aggregate. , 2006, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[6]  D. Salvadori,et al.  In vitro biocompatibility tests of two commercial types of mineral trioxide aggregate. , 2005, Brazilian oral research.

[7]  K. Kirkwood,et al.  Preferential attachment of human gingival fibroblasts to the resin ionomer Geristore. , 2005, Journal of Endodontics.

[8]  J. Jeng,et al.  Effects of root-end filling materials and eugenol on mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity and cytotoxicity to human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. , 2004, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[9]  S. Al-Nazhan.  SEM observations of the attachment of human periodontal ligament fibroblasts to non-demineralized dentin surface in vitro. , 2004, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[10]  H. Balto.  Attachment and morphological behavior of human periodontal ligament fibroblasts to mineral trioxide aggregate: a scanning electron microscope study. , 2004, Journal of endodontics.

[11]  B. Jeansonne,et al.  Adhesion of human fibroblasts to root-end-filling materials. , 2003, Journal of endodontics.

[12]  J. Gutmann,et al.  Osteoblasts and MG-63 osteosarcoma cells behave differently when in contact with ProRoot MTA and White MTA. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[13]  S. Al-Nazhan,et al.  Attachment of human periodontal ligament fibroblasts to 3 different root-end filling materials: Scanning electron microscope observation. , 2003, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[14]  R. G. Richards,et al.  Fibroblast and osteoblast adhesion and morphology on calcium phosphate surfaces. , 2002, European cells & materials.

[15]  Qiang Zhu,et al.  Adhesion of human osteoblasts on root-end filling materials. , 2000, Journal of endodontics.

[16]  H. Li,et al.  A comparison of the effects of two kinds of glass-ionomer cement on human gingival fibroblast attachment, proliferation and morphology in vitro. , 2000, Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology.

[17]  A. Moule,et al.  A comparison in vitro of fibroblast attachment to resected root-ends. , 1999, International endodontic journal.

[18]  K. Söderholm,et al.  BIS-GMA--based resins in dentistry: are they safe? , 1999, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[19]  F. Della Ragione,et al.  Biocompatibility studies on glass ionomer cements by primary cultures of human osteoblasts. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[20]  D. Williams,et al.  Biocompatibility of glass ionomer cements. , 1993, Biomaterials.

[21]  A. Hensten-Pettersen.  Comparison of the methods available for assessing cytotoxicity. , 2007, International endodontic journal.

[22]  R. G. Craig.  Restorative dental materials , 1971 .