Biocompatibility of retrograde root filling materials: a review.

Operative Dentistry and Endodontics Department, Ondokuz Mayis University Faculty of Dentistry, Kurupelit-Samsun, Turkey.
Australian Endodontic Journal (Impact Factor: 0.74). 05/2008; 34(1):30-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2007.00085.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of a retrograde filling material is to fill the apical canal space and to obtain a hermetic seal between the periodontium and the root canal system. Several materials have been suggested for root-end filling including: amalgam, gutta-percha, zinc oxide-eugenol cements, glass ionomer cement, gold foil pellets, Cavit, composite resin and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). Super-ethoxy benzoic acid and MTA are the most suitable materials and provide better results in apicoectomy procedures than other filling materials. Unfortunately, the ideal material for this purpose has yet to be found. This article is a review of the biocompatibility of retrograde filling materials.

1 Follower
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biocompatibility is a desirable feature for root-end filling materials. In this study we aimed to compare a new material called cold ceramic (CC) with intermediate restorative material (IRM) and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) using Methyl-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. The materials were tested in fresh and set states: (n=108). The cytotoxicity was compared using L929 fibroblasts as an indicator; tested materials were eluted with culture medium according to ISO: 109935 standard. Distilled water and culture medium served as positive and negative controls, respectively (n=36). The results were evaluated at 1, 24 hours and 7 days. Data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA for each time interval and material status and t-tests. The cytotoxicity of the tested materials were statistically different at the various time intervals (P<0.001). IRM was the most cytotoxic root-end filling material (P<0.001), MTA demonstrated the least cytotoxicity followed by CC. Despite displaying the greatest cytotoxicity, IRM is approved by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Cold ceramic had significantly lower cytotoxicity compared to IRM, in all but one subgroup. Further investigations are required to assess the clinical applicability of this novel material.
    07/2009; 4(3):106-11.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cytocompatibility of repair materials plays a significant role in the success of root canal repair. We conducted a comparative study on the cytocompatibility among iRoot BP Plus, iRoot FS, ProRoot MTA, and Super-EBA in L929 cells and MG63 cells. The results revealed that iRoot FS was able to completely solidify within 1 hour. iRoot BP Plus required 7-day incubation, which was much longer than expected (2 hours), to completely set. ProRoot MTA and Super-EBA exhibited a similar setting duration of 12 hours. All the materials except Super-EBA possessed negligible in vitro cytotoxicity. iRoot FS had the best cell adhesion capacity in both L929 and MG63 cells. With rapid setting, negligible cytotoxicity, and enhanced cell adhesion capacity, iRoot FS demonstrated great potential in clinical applications. Future work should focus on longer-term in vitro cytocompatibility and an in vivo assessment.
    The Scientific World Journal 01/2014; 2014:463826. DOI:10.1155/2014/463826 · 1.73 Impact Factor


Available from