4.1 Article

Effect of time of extraction on the biocompatibility of endodontic sealers with primary human fibroblasts

Journal

BRAZILIAN ORAL RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 5, Pages 424-430

Publisher

SOCIEDADE BRASILEIRA DE PESQUISA ODONTOLOGICA
DOI: 10.1590/S1806-83242012000500008

Keywords

Materials Testing; Endodontics; In vitro

Funding

  1. CAPES [2993-06-6]
  2. FAPERJ [e-26/110.909/2009]
  3. Canadian Academy of Endodontics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this work was to evaluate the effects of different times of extraction on the cytotoxicity of six representatives of different root canal sealer groups-Real Seal SE, AH Plus, GuttaFlow, Sealapex, Roth 801, and ThermaSeal Plus-with human gingival fibroblasts. The materials were prepared according to manufacturers' specifications, and were incubated in culture medium (DMEM) at 37 degrees C for 1, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days, with daily washing, to simulate periodontal ligament clearance. Human fibroblasts were exposed to the final extracts at 24 hours, and cell viability was determined by MTT assay, with exposure to unconditioned DMEM as a negative control. Statistical analysis comparing cytotoxicities at each exposure time was performed by ANOVA with Scheffe adjustment for multiple comparisons at a 95% confidence level. Results indicated that GuttaFlow was significantly less cytotoxic than all other sealers (p < 0.05) at 1 day of extraction. After 7 days of extraction, cell viability for GuttaFlow was significantly increased as compared with that of all groups except sealer AH Plus. At day 14, cytotoxicity of Sealapex was significantly higher than that of all other sealers (p < 0.05). At days 21 and 28, there were no significant differences in cytotoxicity among sealer groups. All materials presented some level of cytotoxicity to fibroblasts, while GuttaFlow was the least cytotoxic sealer tested. However, the cytotoxicity of all materials seemed to decrease similarly in a time-dependent manner.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available