We have located links that may give you full text access.
Cytotoxicity of GuttaFlow Bioseal, GuttaFlow2, MTA Fillapex, and AH Plus on Human Periodontal Ligament Stem Cells.
Journal of Endodontics 2017 May
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.
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.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app