Cytotoxicity and Bioactivity of Calcium Silicate-based Cements in a Culture of Stem Cells from the Apical Papilla

The present study evaluated the cytotoxicity and bioactivity of commonly-used calcium silicate-based cements in a culture of stem cells from the apical papilla (SCAPs). NeoMTA Plus (Avalon Biomed), Biodentine (Septodont) and MTA HP Repair (Angelus) cements were evaluated using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Iranian endodontic journal 2021, Vol.16 (4), p.225-231
Hauptverfasser: Knorr, Adriana, Mestieri, Leticia Boldrin, Pinheiro, Lucas Siqueira, Mendes, Roberta Almeida, Gonzalez Hernandez, Pedro Antonio, Barletta, Fernando Branco, Grecca, Fabiana Soares
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The present study evaluated the cytotoxicity and bioactivity of commonly-used calcium silicate-based cements in a culture of stem cells from the apical papilla (SCAPs). NeoMTA Plus (Avalon Biomed), Biodentine (Septodont) and MTA HP Repair (Angelus) cements were evaluated using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) and sulphorhodamine-B (SRB) viability assays. Cells were seeded (1*10 cells mL ) in 96-well plates and exposed to 1:4 diluted extract in 24 h and 72 h. For the analysis of bioactivity, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) enzyme activity and Alizarin Red S (AZR) were assessed after 24 h of cell culture in 12-well plates (1*10 cells mL ), where cells were exposed to 1:4 diluted extract on days 1 and 7. Minimum Essential Eagle's Medium alpha modification was used as control. ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test were used to compare the different cements at each experimental time point. No significant differences were found between the cements and the control specimens on MTT at 24 h and 72 h ( >0.05); however, the calcium silicate-based cement materials showed higher cell viability compared to the control group (
ISSN:1735-7497
2008-2746
DOI:10.22037/iej.v16i4.30747