Comparative tissue toxicity evaluation of four endodontic sealers

Mittal, Mandeep; Chandra, Shaleen

doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(06)81116-7

Cited by 51 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…36 Previous studies with the original formulation of Sealapex presented mild inflammation during initial periods, which reduced over time. 37 Analyzing the new formulation of Sealapex, inflammatory infiltrate increased at day 14. 38 and at day 90 of the experimental period, 15 suggesting that the alterations might have affected tissue compatibility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility and biomineralization assessment of bioceramic-, epoxy-, and calcium hydroxide-based sealers

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Obturation of the root canal system aims to fill empty spaces, promoting hermetic sealing and preventing bacterial activity in periapical tissues. This should provide optimal conditions for repair, stimulating the process of biomineralization. An endodontic sealer should be biocompatible once it is in direct contact with periapical tissues. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rat subcutaneous tissue response to implanted polyethylene tubes filled with Smartpaste Bio, Acroseal, and Sealapex and investigate mineralization ability of these endodontic sealers. Forty Wistar rats were assigned to the three sealers groups and control group, (n = 10 animals/group) and received subcutaneous implants containing the test sealers, and the control group were implanted with empty tubes. After days 7, 15, 30, and 60, animals were euthanized and polyethylene tubes were removed with the surrounding tissues. Inflammatory infiltrate and thickness of the fibrous capsule were histologically evaluated. Mineralization was analyzed by Von Kossa staining and polarized light. Data were tabulated and analyzed via Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's test. All tested materials induced a moderate inflammatory reaction in the initial periods. Smartpaste Bio induced the mildest inflammatory reactions after day 15. No difference was observed among groups after days 30 or 60. Von Kossa-positive staining and birefringent structures observed under polarized light revealed a larger mineralization area in Sealapex-treated animals followed by Smartpaste Bio-treated animals. At the end of the experiment, all tested sealers were found to be biocompatible. All sealers induced biomineralization, except Acroseal, which induced a mild tissue reaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biocompatibility and biomineralization assessment of bioceramic-, epoxy-, and calcium hydroxide-based sealers

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13,14 In the present study, an in vitro model was chosen for the evaluation of biocompatibility, due to the advantages of using standardized growth medium composition, a defined incubator milieu, and sterile working conditions, allowing for an accurate quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the results. 9 Also, the extracts used in this study were undiluted at day 1, since a pilot study demonstrated that cytotoxicity increased concomitantly with extract concentration (data not shown).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of time of extraction on the biocompatibility of endodontic sealers with primary human fibroblasts

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work was to evaluate the effects of different times of extraction on the cytotoxicity of six representatives of different root canal sealer groups-Real Seal SE, AH Plus, GuttaFlow, Sealapex, Roth 801, and ThermaSeal Plus-with human gingival fibroblasts. The materials were prepared according to manufacturers' specifications, and were incubated in culture medium (DMEM) at 37°C for 1, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days, with daily washing, to simulate periodontal ligament clearance. Human fibroblasts were exposed to the final extracts at 24 hours, and cell viability was determined by MTT assay, with exposure to unconditioned DMEM as a negative control. Statistical analysis comparing cytotoxicities at each exposure time was performed by ANOVA with Scheffé adjustment for multiple comparisons at a 95% confidence level. Results indicated that GuttaFlow was significantly less cytotoxic than all other sealers (p < 0.05) at 1 day of extraction. After 7 days of extraction, cell viability for GuttaFlow was significantly increased as compared with that of all groups except sealer AH Plus. At day 14, cytotoxicity of Sealapex was significantly higher than that of all other sealers (p < 0.05). At days 21 and 28, there were no significant differences in cytotoxicity among sealer groups. All materials presented some level of cytotoxicity to fibroblasts, while GuttaFlow was the least cytotoxic sealer tested. However, the cytotoxicity of all materials seemed to decrease similarly in a time-dependent manner.

show abstract

“…The study of dental materials biocompatibility in Wistar rats was performed because previous investigations [12,27] have indicated that alveolar implant-a simple insertion technique that simulates the reactions of the apical tissue area-closely models the endodontic clinical condition [28]. However, the authors of these previous reports stated that any material introduced into the extraction socket disturbed tissue organization and injured the periodontal ligament, leading to delays in the normal repair process [23,29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It shows excellent tissue response [12] and has an antimicrobial effect against Enterococcus faecalis [13].…”

Section: O R I G I N a L A R T I C L Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Mixing failures of endodontic sealers: an in vivo biocompatibility study

Bueno

Lopes

Valentim

et al. 2017

BDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Evaluate, in vivo, the influence of mixing failures on endodontic sealers. Material and methods: To alveolus analysis, 80 rats were divided into Sealapex® and AH Plus® groups. Within each group, the sealer was subjected to either partial (incomplete homogenization—simulating handling failures) or total mixing (complete homogenization) over two periods of 7 and 30 days (n = 20). The maxillary incisor was extracted and a polyethylene tube containing the sealer was inserted. To quantify edema, 40 male rats were divided into four groups (n = 10). The animals received 2% Evans Blue intravenously, and either AH Plus® or Sealapex® was injected subcutaneously. The rats were euthanized after 3 or 6 hours and analyzed in a spectrophotometer (630 ƞm). To analyze the subcutaneous tissue, 20 rats received polyethylene tube implants with the sealers in the dorsal area (n=10), then euthanized after either 7 or 30 days, and inflammation was evaluated according to an inflammatory cells score. Results: In the alveolar 7-day group, control group presented an inflammation score 1, while all other groups presented a score 2, except AH plus® total mix group (3). After 30 days, all groups presented a score 1. The edemogenic test showed less edema in Sealapex® groups (p < 0.5). In subcutaneous 7-day period, all groups presented score 2. In 30 days, all groups revealed score 1, except AH Plus® partial mix group (2). Conclusion: Regarding mixing of the sealers, there were no significant differences among the groups.KeywordsAH Plus; Inflammation; Materials testing; Root canal filling materials; Sealapex.

show abstract

Comparative tissue toxicity evaluation of four endodontic sealers

Cited by 51 publications

References 12 publications

Biocompatibility and biomineralization assessment of bioceramic-, epoxy-, and calcium hydroxide-based sealers

Biocompatibility and biomineralization assessment of bioceramic-, epoxy-, and calcium hydroxide-based sealers

Effect of time of extraction on the biocompatibility of endodontic sealers with primary human fibroblasts

Mixing failures of endodontic sealers: an in vivo biocompatibility study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About