Article

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: 0.5). 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
306 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro cytotoxicity of the pozzolan cement and other root-end filling materials using human periodontal ligament cell. Endocem (Maruchi), white ProRoot MTA (Dentsply), white Angelus MTA (Angelus), and Super EBA (Bosworth Co.) were tested after set completely in an incubator at 37℃ for 7 days, Endocem was tested in two ways: 1) immediately after mixing (fresh specimens) and 2) after setting completely like other experimental materials. The methods for assessment included light microscopic examination, cell counting and WST-1 assay on human periodontal ligament cell. In the results of microscopic examination and cell counting, Super EBA showed significantly lower viable cell than any other groups (p < 0.05). As the results of WST-1 assay, compared with untreated control group, there was no significant cell viability of the Endocem group. However, the fresh mixed Endocem group had significantly less cell viability. The cells exposed to ProRoot MTA and Angelus MTA showed the highest viability, whereas the cells exposed to Super EBA displayed the lowest viability (p < 0.05). The cytotoxicity of the pozzolan cement (Endocem) was comparable with ProRoot MTA and Angelus MTA. Considering the difficult manipulation and long setting time of ProRoot MTA and Angelus MTA, Endocem can be used as the alternative of retrofilling material.
    Restorative dentistry & endodontics. 02/2014; 39(1):39-44.
  • Source
    Restorative dentistry & endodontics. 02/2014; 39(1):78.
  • 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. · 1.73 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
13 Downloads
Available from