English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Substances and materials used in endodontic therapy come into close contact with the periradicular tissues via apical foramen and foramina. Consequently, they should possess biocompatibility. There are currently few studies describing the genotoxic and mutagenic potentials of substances and materials used in endodontics. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the direct genotoxic and mutagenic properties of several substances and materials used in different phases of the endodontic treatment. For this intent, two prokaryotic test systems were used: the SOS chromotest and the Ames test. No metabolization with S9 was investigated, since only the direct effects of the substances and materials were surveyed. Most of the substances and materials tested presented mild to moderate cytotoxicity and genotoxicity as revealed by the SOS chromotest. Formocresol was the only tested substance to present severe genotoxicity to the tester bacterial strains. However, no substance or material tested showed direct mutagenicity as revealed by the Ames test.

Direct genotoxicity and mutagenicity of endodontic substances and materials as evaluated by two prokaryotic test systems