4.5 Article

Direct Effect of Intracanal Medicaments on Survival of Stem Cells of the Apical Papilla

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
Volume 38, Issue 10, Pages 1372-1375

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.06.018

Keywords

Apical papilla; biocompatible; calcium hydroxide; dental stem cells; double antibiotic; human stem cells of the apical papilla; regenerative; triple antibiotic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Regenerative endodontic procedures are an alternative treatment for immature teeth with necrotic pulps. Typically, intracanal medicaments such as triple antibiotic paste (TAP) or double antibiotic paste (DAP) and calcium hydroxide (Ca[OH](2)) are used for disinfection. However, their effect on human stem cells of the apical papilla (SCAPs) is unknown. We hypothesized that intracanal medicaments at high concentrations are toxic to SCAPs. To test this hypothesis, a cell culture assay was used. Methods: Briefly, SCAPs were cultured and subjected to either no drug treatment or various concentrations including TAP, DAP, modified TAP (ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and cefaclor), Augmentin (Champs Pharmacy, San Antonio, TX), or Ca(OH)(2). Viable stem cells counts were obtained using an automated method of detecting trypan blue dye at 3 days after treatment. Results: All 4 antibiotics significantly reduced SCAP survival in a concentration-dependent fashion. Interestingly, Ca(OH)(2) was conducive with SCAP survival at all concentrations. Conclusions: Collectively, our data show that high concentrations of antibiotics have a detrimental effect on SCAP survival, whereas lower concentrations as well as Ca(OH)(2) at all tested concentrations are conducive with SCAP survival and proliferation. These studies highlight the clinically important point that intracanal medicaments must be used at concentrations that are bactericidal while having minimal effects on stem cell viability. (J Endod 2012;38:1372-1375)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available