AIM: To compare the in vitro biocompatibility of Biodentine™ and White ProRoot(®) mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA(®) ) with MG63 osteoblast-like cells and to characterize the cement surface. METHODOLOGY: A direct contact model for MG63 osteoblast-like cells with cements was used for 1, 3 and 5 days. Four end-points were investigated: (i) cement surface characterization by atomic force microscopy (AFM), (ii) cell viability by MTT assay, (iii) protein amount quantification by Bradford assay and (iv) cell morphology by SEM. Statistical analyses were performed by analysis of variance (anova) with a repetition test method. RESULTS: The roughness of the cements was comparable as revealed by AFM analysis. The MTT test for Biodentine™ was similar to that of MTA(®) . Biodentine™ and MTA(®) induced a similar but slight decrease in metabolic activity. The amount of total protein was significantly enhanced at day three (P < 0.05) but slightly decreased at day five for both tested samples. Biodentine™ was tolerated as well as MTA(®) in all cytotoxicity assays. SEM observations showed improvement of cell attachment and proliferation on both material surfaces following the three incubation periods. CONCLUSION: The biocompatibility of Biodentine™ to bone cells was comparable to MTA(®) .
AIM: To compare the in vitro biocompatibility of Biodentine™ and White ProRoot(®) mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA(®) ) with MG63 osteoblast-like cells and to characterize the cement surface. METHODOLOGY: A direct contact model for MG63 osteoblast-like cells with cements was used for 1, 3 and 5 days. Four end-points were investigated: (i) cement surface characterization by atomic force microscopy (AFM), (ii) cell viability by MTT assay, (iii) protein amount quantification by Bradford assay and (iv) cell morphology by SEM. Statistical analyses were performed by analysis of variance (anova) with a repetition test method. RESULTS: The roughness of the cements was comparable as revealed by AFM analysis. The MTT test for Biodentine™ was similar to that of MTA(®) . Biodentine™ and MTA(®) induced a similar but slight decrease in metabolic activity. The amount of total protein was significantly enhanced at day three (P < 0.05) but slightly decreased at day five for both tested samples. Biodentine™ was tolerated as well as MTA(®) in all cytotoxicity assays. SEM observations showed improvement of cell attachment and proliferation on both material surfaces following the three incubation periods. CONCLUSION: The biocompatibility of Biodentine™ to bone cells was comparable to MTA(®) .
Authors: Lauter E Pelepenko; Flavia Saavedra; Thiago B M Antunes; Gabriela F Bombarda; Brenda P F A Gomes; Alexandre A Zaia; Josette Camilleri; Marina A Marciano Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 3.573