Mar Collado-González1, Christopher J Tomás-Catalá2, Ricardo E Oñate-Sánchez3, José M Moraleda1, Francisco J Rodríguez-Lozano4. 1. Cellular Therapy and Hematopoietic Transplant Unit, Hematology Department, Virgen de la Arrixaca Clinical University Hospital, IMIB-Arrixaca, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain. 2. Cellular Therapy and Hematopoietic Transplant Unit, Hematology Department, Virgen de la Arrixaca Clinical University Hospital, IMIB-Arrixaca, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain; School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain. 3. School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain. 4. Cellular Therapy and Hematopoietic Transplant Unit, Hematology Department, Virgen de la Arrixaca Clinical University Hospital, IMIB-Arrixaca, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain; School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain. Electronic address: fcojavier@um.es.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the in vitro cytotoxicity of endodontic sealers (GuttaFlow Bioseal, GuttaFlow2, and MTA Fillapex) on human periodontal ligament stem cells (hPDLSCs). As a reference, AH Plus was compared with the more recent endodontic sealers regarding cell viability and cell attachment. METHODS: Biological testing was carried out in vitro on hPDLSCs. Cell viability assay was performed by using eluates from each endodontic sealer. To assess cell morphology and attachment to the different sealers, the hPDLSCs were directly seeded onto the material surfaces and analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. Chemical composition of the sealers was determined by energy-dispersive x-ray, and eluates were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Statistical differences were assessed by analysis of variance and Tukey test (P < .05). RESULTS: Cell viability was evident after 24 hours in the presence of GuttaFlow Bioseal and GuttaFlow 2 but not in the case of AH Plus or MTA Fillapex. At 168 hours, GuttaFlow Bioseal and GuttaFlow 2 exhibited high and moderate cell viability, respectively, whereas AH Plus and MTA Fillapex revealed low rates of cell cell viability (P < .001). Finally, scanning electron microscopy studies revealed a high degree of proliferation, cell spreading, and attachment, especially when using GuttaFlow Bioseal disks. CONCLUSIONS: GuttaFlow Bioseal and GuttaFlow2 showed lower cytotoxicity than MTA Fillapex and AH plus. Further in vitro and in vivo investigations are required to confirm the suitability of GuttaFlow Bioseal for clinical application.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the in vitro cytotoxicity of endodontic sealers (GuttaFlow Bioseal, GuttaFlow2, and MTA Fillapex) on human periodontal ligament stem cells (hPDLSCs). As a reference, AH Plus was compared with the more recent endodontic sealers regarding cell viability and cell attachment. METHODS: Biological testing was carried out in vitro on hPDLSCs. Cell viability assay was performed by using eluates from each endodontic sealer. To assess cell morphology and attachment to the different sealers, the hPDLSCs were directly seeded onto the material surfaces and analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. Chemical composition of the sealers was determined by energy-dispersive x-ray, and eluates were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Statistical differences were assessed by analysis of variance and Tukey test (P < .05). RESULTS: Cell viability was evident after 24 hours in the presence of GuttaFlow Bioseal and GuttaFlow 2 but not in the case of AH Plus or MTA Fillapex. At 168 hours, GuttaFlow Bioseal and GuttaFlow 2 exhibited high and moderate cell viability, respectively, whereas AH Plus and MTA Fillapex revealed low rates of cell cell viability (P < .001). Finally, scanning electron microscopy studies revealed a high degree of proliferation, cell spreading, and attachment, especially when using GuttaFlow Bioseal disks. CONCLUSIONS: GuttaFlow Bioseal and GuttaFlow2 showed lower cytotoxicity than MTA Fillapex and AH plus. Further in vitro and in vivo investigations are required to confirm the suitability of GuttaFlow Bioseal for clinical application.
Authors: C Llena; M Collado-González; D García-Bernal; R E Oñate-Sánchez; C M Martínez; J M Moraleda; F J Rodríguez-Lozano; L Forner Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sergio López-García; Adrián Lozano; David García-Bernal; Leopoldo Forner; Carmen Llena; Julia Guerrero-Gironés; José M Moraleda; Laura Murcia; Francisco J Rodríguez-Lozano Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Diogo Afonso Fonseca; Anabela Baptista Paula; Carlos Miguel Marto; Ana Coelho; Siri Paulo; José Pedro Martinho; Eunice Carrilho; Manuel Marques Ferreira Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Sergio López-García; Miguel R Pecci-Lloret; Julia Guerrero-Gironés; María P Pecci-Lloret; Adrián Lozano; Carmen Llena; Francisco Javier Rodríguez-Lozano; Leopoldo Forner Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2019-09-22 Impact factor: 3.623