Suzan Margunato1, Pakize Neslihan Taşlı2, Safa Aydın2, Meriç Karapınar Kazandağ1, Fikrettin Şahin3. 1. Department of Endodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Genetics and Bioengineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Department of Genetics and Bioengineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: fsahin@yeditepe.edu.tr.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Stem cell technology has been a great hope for the regeneration of cells of pulp-dentin complex and dental structures together with surrounding bone and periodontium. The main challenge in the regeneration process is a successful combination of stem cells and efficient inductors such as inductive biomaterials. In this regard, today, manufacturers propose novel tooth filling materials. The current study was aimed to compare the effect of ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fossés, France), and MM-MTA (Micro-Mega, Besançon Cedex, France) on the cell viability, hard tissue deposition capacity, and osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow stem cells (hBMSCs) derived from mandibular bone. METHODS: Dental materials were packed into Teflon rings (Grover Corp, Milwaukee, WI) and placed on Transwell inserts (Corning, Corning, NY) to determine the toxicity of tooth filling materials by the 3-(4,5-dimethyl-thiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxy-methoxy-phenyl)-2-(4-sulfo-phenyl)-2H tetrazolium assay on days 1, 3, 7, and 14; 20% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was used as a positive control for the toxicity assay. hBMSCs were characterized by their surface markers with mesenchymal stem cell antibodies. Teflon rings were cocultured with hBMSCs followed by the induction of osteogenic differentiation. The osteogenic differentiation of hBMSCs and hard tissue formation of the materials were evaluated by analyzing the messenger RNA expression levels of osteonectin, Runt-related transcription factor 2, and collagen type 1A by real-time polymerase chain reaction expression analysis, measurement of alkaline phosphatase activity, and visualization of calcium deposits by alizarin red staining. RESULTS: MTA, Biodentine, and MM-MTA did not exhibit a cytotoxic effect on hBMSCs after 14 days in culture. Even though all the materials significantly stimulate (P < .05) osteogenic differentiation of hBMSCs compared with the negative control, ProRoot MTA showed greater osteoinductivity than Biodentine or MM-MTA according to the messenger RNA expression, alkaline phosphatase, immunocytochemistry, and alizarin red staining data. CONCLUSIONS: All of the dental materials used in this study show the osteogenic differentiation potential of hBMSCs. Therefore, newly introduced MM-MTA can also be used as a material of choice in routine dental treatment.
INTRODUCTION: Stem cell technology has been a great hope for the regeneration of cells of pulp-dentin complex and dental structures together with surrounding bone and periodontium. The main challenge in the regeneration process is a successful combination of stem cells and efficient inductors such as inductive biomaterials. In this regard, today, manufacturers propose novel tooth filling materials. The current study was aimed to compare the effect of ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fossés, France), and MM-MTA (Micro-Mega, Besançon Cedex, France) on the cell viability, hard tissue deposition capacity, and osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow stem cells (hBMSCs) derived from mandibular bone. METHODS: Dental materials were packed into Teflon rings (Grover Corp, Milwaukee, WI) and placed on Transwell inserts (Corning, Corning, NY) to determine the toxicity of tooth filling materials by the 3-(4,5-dimethyl-thiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxy-methoxy-phenyl)-2-(4-sulfo-phenyl)-2H tetrazolium assay on days 1, 3, 7, and 14; 20% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was used as a positive control for the toxicity assay. hBMSCs were characterized by their surface markers with mesenchymal stem cell antibodies. Teflon rings were cocultured with hBMSCs followed by the induction of osteogenic differentiation. The osteogenic differentiation of hBMSCs and hard tissue formation of the materials were evaluated by analyzing the messenger RNA expression levels of osteonectin, Runt-related transcription factor 2, and collagen type 1A by real-time polymerase chain reaction expression analysis, measurement of alkaline phosphatase activity, and visualization of calcium deposits by alizarin red staining. RESULTS: MTA, Biodentine, and MM-MTA did not exhibit a cytotoxic effect on hBMSCs after 14 days in culture. Even though all the materials significantly stimulate (P < .05) osteogenic differentiation of hBMSCs compared with the negative control, ProRoot MTA showed greater osteoinductivity than Biodentine or MM-MTA according to the messenger RNA expression, alkaline phosphatase, immunocytochemistry, and alizarin red staining data. CONCLUSIONS: All of the dental materials used in this study show the osteogenic differentiation potential of hBMSCs. Therefore, newly introduced MM-MTA can also be used as a material of choice in routine dental treatment.
Authors: Frangis Nikfarjam; Kim Beyer; Anke König; Matthias Hofmann; Manuel Butting; Eva Valesky; Stefan Kippenberger; Roland Kaufmann; Detlef Heidemann; August Bernd; Nadja Nicole Zöller Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Diana María Escobar-García; Eva Aguirre-López; Verónica Méndez-González; Amaury Pozos-Guillén Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 3.411