Premium
Cytocompatibility and bioactive potential of AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer: An in vitro study
Author(s) -
Sanz José Luis,
LópezGarcía Sergio,
RodríguezLozano Francisco Javier,
Melo María,
Lozano Adrián,
Llena Carmen,
Forner Leopoldo
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
international endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.988
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1365-2591
pISSN - 0143-2885
DOI - 10.1111/iej.13805
Subject(s) - bioceramic , viability assay , dentistry , andrology , chemistry , positive control , mtt assay , cell growth , in vitro , materials science , microbiology and biotechnology , biomedical engineering , biology , medicine , traditional medicine , biochemistry , nanotechnology
Aim To assess the cytocompatibility and bioactive potential of the new calcium silicate cement‐based sealer AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer (AHPbcs) on human periodontal ligament stem cells (hPDLSCs) compared with the epoxy resin‐based sealer AH Plus (AHP) and the calcium silicate cement‐based sealer Endosequence BC Sealer (ESbcs). Methodology Standardized sample discs and 1:1, 1:2 and 1:4 eluates of the tested materials were prepared. The following assays were performed: surface element distribution via SEM–EDX, cell attachment and morphology via SEM, cell viability via a MTT assay, cell migration/proliferation via a wound‐healing assay, osteo/cemento/odontogenic marker expression via RT‐qPCR and cell mineralized nodule formation via Alizarin Red S staining. HPDLSCs were isolated from extracted third molars. Comparisons were made with hPDLSCs cultured in unconditioned (negative control) or osteogenic (positive control) culture media. Statistical significance was established at p < .05. Results A higher peak of Ca 2 + was detected from ESbcs compared with AHPbcs and AHP in SEM–EDX. Both AHPbcs and ESbcs showed significantly positive results in the cytocompatibility assays (cell viability, migration/proliferation, attachment and morphology) compared with a negative control group, whilst AHP showed significant negative results. Both AHPbcs and ESbcs exhibited an upregulation of at least one osteo/odonto/cementogenic marker compared with the negative and positive control groups. Both ESbcs and AHPbcs showed a significantly higher calcified nodule formation than the negative and positive control groups, indicative of their biomineralization potential and were also significantly higher than AHP group. Conclusion AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer exhibited a significantly higher cytocompatibility and bioactive potential than AH Plus and a similar cytocompatibility to that of Endosequence BC Sealer. Endosequence BC Sealer exhibited a significantly higher mineralization potential than the other tested sealers. The results from this in vitro study act as supporting evidence for the use of AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer in root canal treatment.