| Literature DB >> 34141112 |
Sinem Birant1, Muazzez Gokalp2, Yazgul Duran2, Mine Koruyucu3, Tunc Akkoc2, Figen Seymen3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/Entities:
Keywords: Cytotoxicity; Dental pulp stem cells; Mineral trioxide aggregate
Year: 2020 PMID: 34141112 PMCID: PMC8189880 DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.10.009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Dent Sci ISSN: 1991-7902 Impact factor: 2.080
Composition of materials evaluated.
| Materials | Manufacturer | Composition |
|---|---|---|
| ProRoot MTA | Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Hohnson City, Germany | Powder: Portland cement, bismuth oxide, calcium sulfate dihydrate, tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, tetracalcium aluminoferrite |
| NeoMTA Plus | Avalon Biomed, Bradenton, Florida, USA | Powder: Tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tantalum oxide |
| Biodentine | Septodont, Saint Maurdes Fosses, France | Powder: Tricalcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, calcium carbonate, calcium oxide, iron oxide, zirconium oxide |
| CDMEM | Gibco, Grand Island, NY, USA | %10 FBS, %1 penicillin/streptomycin, DMEM (Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium) |
CDMEM, complete dulbecco's modified eagle medium; DMEM, dulbecco's modified eagle medium.
Figure 1Morphological appearance of hDPSCs, (x10); A) hDPSCs on 1st passage B) hDPSCs on 2nd passage C) hDPSCs on 3rd passage.
Figure 2(A): Representative flow cytometry analysis of mesenchymal cell surface markers on hDPSCs. (B): Representative flow cytometry analysis of hematopoietic cell surface markers on hDPSCs.
Figure 3Differentiation analysis in hDPSCs; A) Differentiation of hDPSCs into osteoblasts was confirmed by Alizarin Red staining, (x40); B) Differentiation of hDPSCs into chondrocytes was confirmed by Alcian Blue staining, (x40); C) Differentiation of hDPSCs into adipocytes was confirmed by Oil Red O staining, (x40).
Figure 4Flow cytometry analysis of hDPSc after incubation in ProRoot MTA for different time intervals. (A) 1 day; (B) 3 days; (C) 7 days.
Figure 5Flow cytometry analysis of hDPSc after incubation in NeoMTA Plus for different time intervals. (A) 1 day; (B) 3 days; (C) 7 days.
Figure 6Flow cytometry analysis of hDPSc after incubation in Biodentine for different time intervals. (A) 1 day; (B) 3 days; (C) 7 days.
Figure 7Flow cytometry analysis of hDPSc after incubation in CDMEM (control group) for different time intervals. (A) 1 day; (B) 3 days; (C) 7 days.
Evaluation of cell viability among 3 different days and among 4 different groups.
| Cell Viability | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Day | 3 rd Day | 7 th Day | ||
| Mean ± SD (median) | Mean ± SD (median) | Mean ± SD (median) | ||
| Biodentine | 62.93 ± 31.45 (62.7) | 59.35 ± 33.08 (63.8) | 75.23 ± 13.38 (76.6) | 0.926 |
| ProRoot MTA | 53.69 ± 30.22 (53.7) | 51.57 ± 29.87 (53.3) | 57.48 ± 19.75 (57.6) | 0.912 |
| NeoMTA Plus | 57.16 ± 28.13 (57.1) | 43.73 ± 23.31 (36.2) | 54.02 ± 19.53 (49.5) | 0.472 |
| CDMEM | 84.1 ± 1.8 (84.9) | 77.59 ± 6.09 (77.7) | 53.2 ± 36.34 (52.9) | 0.393 |
| p | 0.091 | 0.452 | 0.608 | |
CDMEM, complete dulbecco's modified eagle medium; SD, standard deviation.
Kruskal Wallis Test ∗p < 0.05.
Evaluation of early apoptotic cell ratios among 3 different days and among 4 different groups.
| Early Apoptotic Cell Ratios | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Day | 3 rd Day | 7 th Day | ||
| Mean ± SD (median) | Mean ± SD (median) | Mean ± SD (median) | ||
| Biodentine | 9.38 ± 15.34 (2.5) | 4.04 ± 4.87 (2.5) | 2.75 ± 4.21 (0.9) | 0.794 |
| ProRoot MTA | 10.84 ± 17.54 (3.1) | 6.09 ± 4.73 (6.2) | 7.2 ± 12.17 (1.6) | 0.904 |
| NeoMTA Plus | 12.47 ± 18.68 (4.9) | 8.37 ± 9.82 (5.4) | 5.08 ± 4.29 (4.9) | 1.000 |
| CDMEM | 2.77 ± 1.29 (2.5) | 4.41 ± 2.49 (4.9) | 24.3 ± 25.64 (24.6) | 0.665 |
| p | 0.993 | 0.907 | 0.311 | |
CDMEM, complete dulbecco's modified eagle medium; SD, standard deviation.
Kruskal Wallis Test ∗p < 0.05.
Evaluation of late apoptotic cell ratios among 3 different days and among 4 different groups.
| Late Apoptotic Cell Ratios | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Day | 3 rd Day | 7 th Day | ||
| Mean ± SD (median) | Mean ± SD (median) | Mean ± SD (median) | ||
| Biodentine | 14.74 ± 11.93 (12.7) | 23.82 ± 26.72 (14.4) | 6.55 ± 3.7 (6.8) | 0.551 |
| ProRoot MTA | 20.08 ± 10.84 (16.3) | 31.46 ± 27.29 (28.7) | 18.7 ± 18.68 (14.2) | 0.694 |
| NeoMTA Plus | 13.66 ± 5.23 (12.7) | 27.45 ± 19.03 (29.7) | 18.66 ± 12.57 (19.2) | 0.368 |
| CDMEM | 9.14 ± 1.77 (9.3) | 9.61 ± 3.6 (10) | 16.95 ± 13.62 (17.1) | 1.000 |
| p | 0.197 | 0.707 | 0.530 | |
CDMEM, complete dulbecco's modified eagle medium; SD, standard deviation.
Kruskal Wallis Test ∗p < 0.05.
Evaluation of necrotic cell ratios among 3 different days and among 4 different groups.
| Necrotic Cell Ratios | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Day | 3 rd Day | 7 th Day | ||
| Mean ± SD (median) | Mean ± SD (median) | Mean ± SD (median) | ||
| Biodentine | 12.96 ± 21.97 (2.6) | 12.8 ± 9.04 (11.2) | 15.47 ± 11.91 (12) | 0.368 |
| ProRoot MTA | 15.39 ± 24.76 (4.5) | 10.88 ± 5.49 (9.1) | 16.61 ± 7.53 (17.8) | 0.368 |
| NeoMTA Plus | 16.71 ± 23.44 (7.4) | 20.45 ± 15.28 (21.1) | 22.25 ± 10.48 (21.4) | 0.584 |
| CDMEM | 5.77 ± 1.09 (6.3) | 12.04 ± 7.74 (10.5) | 7.21 ± 1.01 (7.1) | 0.135 |
| p | 0.706 | 0.812 | 0.191 | |
CDMEM, complete dulbecco's modified eagle medium; SD, standard deviation.
Kruskal Wallis Test ∗p < 0.05.