Biocompatibility of Root Canal Filling Materials: Differences between Vitality and Functionality Tests:

European Journal of Inflammation

L.Testarelli¹ 

关键词: biocompatibility;    oxidative burst;    peripheral blood monocytes;    root canal filling materials;   

DOI  :  10.1177/1721727X1201000112

学科分类：医学（综合）

来源: Sage Journals

【 摘 要 】

Biocompatibility of root canal filling materials is of great interest because they can come into permanent contact with the living periapical tissue, and induce mild or severe inflammatory responses. Usually biocompatibility tests only determine non-cytotoxic effects of dental materials, even if their functional interactions with cells also play a role in the host responses. The purpose of this study is to evaluate peripheral blood monocyte (PBM) vitality and functionality after contact with 5 different root canal filling materials: Thermafil (gutta-percha), Real Seal and Real Seal 1 (methacrylic resins), AureoSeal (MTA) and SuperSeal (EBA). Cellular vitality was determined by MTT test and cellular functionality by Chemiluminescence (CL) technique. Dishes of the materials were covered with cell culture medium (0.5 cm2/mL) and incubated for 24 h. The extracts were added to PBMs and the latter, after 2 h of incubation, were analysed by MTT and by Chemiluminescence (CL). All results are expressed as mean ± SEM. The group means were compared by analysis of variance. Results showed that SuperSeal and AuroSeal exhibited a moderate cytotoxic effect, while the toxicity induced by RealSeal, RealSeal 1 and Thermafil was lower. SuperSeal and AuroSeal induced a significant decrease of both oxidative burst and basal reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. RealSeal 1 caused a doubling of basal ROS production in respect to control. The results demonstrate that a low cytotoxic effect does not guarantee a total integrity of cellular functionality and more differences among biocompatibility of root canal materials can be detected when a functionality test is used.

【 授权许可】

CC BY-NC