Article

Biocompatibility of furcal perforation repair material using cell culture technique: Ketac Molar versus ProRoot MTA.

Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. <>
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology (Impact Factor: 1.5). 01/2007; 102(6):e48-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.05.015
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxicity of furcal perforation repair materials, GI and MTA, using cell culture technique.
The extract of ProRoot MTA and Ketac Molar were treated on PDL cells in a 96-well tissue-culture plate. Cell proliferation after an incubation period of 3 days was determined by using MTT assay.
The growth of cultured human periodontal fibroblast cells were suppressed by both perforation repair materials. The percent of cell viability in the Ketac Molar group was lower than in the ProRoot MTA group (P = .000).
Although Ketac Molar has the advantage of adhering to dentine, it is more cytotoxic to the PDL cells than MTA. In selecting the perforation repair material, it is recommended not only to consider the sealing ability of the material with dentine but also the biocompatibility of material to the underlying tissue.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
154 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study was carried out in order to determine in vitro biocompatibility of white mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), and to compare it with that of the commonly used materials, i. e. calcium hydroxide liner (Dycal), glass ionomer cement (GIC), and Portland cement which has a similar composition of MTA. To assess the biocompatibility of each material, cytotoxicity was examined using MG-63 cells. The degree of cytotoxicity was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and a colorimetric method, based on reduction of the tetrazolium salt 2,3 bis {2methoxy 4nitro 5[(sulfenylamino) carbonyl] 2H tetrazolium hydroxide} (XTT) assay. The results of SEM revealed the cells in contact with GIC, MTA. and Portland cement at 1 and 3 days were apparently healthy. In contrast, cells in the presence of Dycal appeared rounded and detached. In XTT assay, the cellular activities of the cells incubated with all the test materials except Dycal were similar, which corresponded with the SEM observation. The present study supports the view that MTA is a very biocompatible root perforation repair material. It also suggests that cellular response of Portland cement and GIC are very similar to that of MTA.
    01/2009; 34(3). DOI:10.5395/JKACD.2009.34.3.192
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: This study sought to compare the elemental constitution, morphological characteristics, particle size distribution, biocompatibility, and mineralization potential of Ortho MTA (OMTA) and ProRoot MTA (PMTA). Materials and Methods: OMTA and PMTA were compared using energy-dispersive spectrometry, particle size analysis, and scanning electron microscopy. The biocompatibility and mineralization-related gene expression (osteonectin and osteopontin) of both MTAs were also compared using methylthiazol tetrazolium assay and reverse transcription-polymerization chain reaction analysis, respectively. The results were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni correction. P-value of
    12/2013; 6(2). DOI:10.5856/JKDS.2013.6.2.41
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) has shown good biocompatibility in several studies. In the present study, the genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of calcium enriched mixture (CEM) were evaluated compared with MTA using MTT and single-cell gel (comet) assays with serial ascending concentrations (0 to 1,000 µg/mL) of tested materials. Cytotoxicity data indicated that there is no significant difference between CEM and MTA at all concentrations except for the full concentration (1,000 µg/mL); CEM had lower cytotoxicity. Genotoxic effects were more evident with CEM at concentrations of 15.6 and 250 µg/mL; however, was less than that of MTA at concentrations of 500 and 1,000 µg/mL. The cytotoxicity and genotoxicity effects of the two experimental groups generally increased with consistency. Under the conditions of this study, CEM is biocompatible in terms of cyto- and genotoxicity. It appears to be an alternative to MTA as an endodontic biomaterial offering several advantages.
    Dental Materials Journal 02/2014; 33(1):64-9. DOI:10.4012/dmj.2013-123 · 0.81 Impact Factor