4.1 Article

The direct cytotoxic effects of medicaments used in endodontic regeneration on human dental pulp cells

期刊

DENTAL TRAUMATOLOGY
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 429-434

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/edt.12108

关键词

cytotoxicity; calcium hydroxide; triple antibiotic paste; double antibiotic paste; endodontic regeneration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of intracanal medicaments commonly used in endodontic regeneration on the survival of human dental pulp cells (DPCs). MethodsDPCs were cultured and exposed to either no medicament treatment or low concentrations (0.3-5mgml(-1)) of calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)(2)], triple antibiotic paste (TAP), or double antibiotic paste (DAP) for 3days. After that, toxicity to the DPCs was determined by lactate dehydrogenase activity assays (LDH) and cell proliferation was measured by colorimetric assays (WST-1). Two-way anova followed by Fisher's protected least significant differences was used for statistical analyses (=0.05). ResultsThe group-by-concentration interactions were significant for the LDH and WST-1 assays (P<0.0001). For the LDH assays, only the highest tested concentration (5mgml(-1)) of Ca(OH)(2) and TAP caused significant toxicity to the DPCs compared with the untreated control, while four tested concentrations of DAP (0.5, 1, 2.5, and 5mgml(-1)) caused significant toxicity to the DPCs compared with the untreated control. For the WST-1 assays, the highest concentrations that did not negatively affect the proliferation rate of DAP, TAP and Ca(OH)(2) were 0.3, 2, and 2.5mgml(-1), respectively. ConclusionThe low concentrations of intracanal medicaments tested in this study were not cytotoxic in cultured cells. However, these concentrations are much lower than the concentrations that have been advocated in endodontic regeneration. Furthermore, the negative effects of TAP on DPCs were detected at lower concentrations by using the WST-1 assays than by measuring the LDH release.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据