4.6 Article

In Vitro Comparison of Biocompatibility of Calcium Silicate-Based Root Canal Sealers

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 12, Issue 15, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma12152411

Keywords

biocompatibility; root canal sealer; calcium silicate; epoxy resin; cell viability; inflammatory response

Funding

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [2018R1D1A1A09081906]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2018R1D1A1A09081906] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of three calcium silicate-based sealers (EndoSeal MTA, Nano-ceramic Sealer, and Wellroot ST) and two epoxy resin-based sealers (AH-Plus, AD Seal) on various aspects, such as cell viability, inflammatory response, and osteogenic potential, of human periodontal ligament stem cells (hPDLSCs). AH-Plus showed the lowest cell viability on hPDLSCs in all time periods in fresh media. In set media, hPDLSCs showed no significant differences in cell viability among all the tested materials. Wellroot ST showed the highest level of cell adhesion and the morphology of attached cells. AH-plus presented a significantly higher expression of IL-6 and IL-8 than the other sealers. AD Seal and three calcium silicate sealers showed high expression of the mesenchymal stem cell markers. ALP mRNA expression showed a significant increase in time-dependent manner on all of three calcium silicate-based sealers, which do not seem to interfere with the differentiation of hPDLSCs into osteoblasts. Based on the results from this study, calcium silicate-based sealers appear to be more biocompatible and less cytotoxic than epoxy resin-based sealers. Meanwhile, further and long-term clinical follow-up studies are required.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available