Limits...
Cytotoxicity of two resin-based sealers and a fluoride varnish on human gingival fibroblasts.

Parirokh M, Forghani FR, Paseban H, Asgary S, Askarifard S, Esmaeeli Mahani S - Iran Endod J (2015)

Bottom Line: AH-Plus showed significantly greater cell viability compared to AH-26 at all dilutions (P<0.001); however, no significant difference was found between Duraflur and AH-Plus in terms of cell viability at 1/8 dilution (P>0.001).Duraflur showed significantly higher cell viability compared to AH-26 except at 1/2 dilution (P<0.001).Although Duraflur varnish had better biocompatibility compared to AH-26, it should still be evaluated with further biocompatibility tests such as intraosseous and subcutaneous implantation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Kerman Neuroscience Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran;

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Assessment of cellular cytotoxicity is a regular method for evaluating the biocompatibility of novel materials. In a recent study, 5% fluoride varnish (Duraflur) has shown reasonable sealing ability and coverage of root canal walls when used as a sealer. The aim of the present study was to compare the cytotoxicity of Duraflur varnish with two popular commonly used root canal sealers (AH-Plus and AH-26) on human gingival fibroblasts (HGF).

Methods and materials: The HGFs were incubated with different concentrations (1/2, 1/4, and 1/8) of AH-plus, AH-26, and Duraflur varnish for 24 h. The percentage of cell viability was assessed with methyl-thiazol-tetrazolium (MTT) assay. The data was analyzed using the one-way ANOVA followed by Student-Newman-Keuls test. The level of significance was set at 0.001.

Results: MTT assay showed that higher concentrations of the tested materials resulted in lower viability of HGFs. AH-Plus showed significantly greater cell viability compared to AH-26 at all dilutions (P<0.001); however, no significant difference was found between Duraflur and AH-Plus in terms of cell viability at 1/8 dilution (P>0.001). Duraflur showed significantly higher cell viability compared to AH-26 except at 1/2 dilution (P<0.001).

Conclusion: Although Duraflur varnish had better biocompatibility compared to AH-26, it should still be evaluated with further biocompatibility tests such as intraosseous and subcutaneous implantation.

No MeSH data available.


Cell viability in control and the test groups
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4372780&req=5

Figure 4: Cell viability in control and the test groups

Mentions: All dilutions (1/2, 1/4, and 1/8) of the materials used in this study (AH-Plus, AH-26, and Duraflur) showed significantly lower cell viability compared to the control group (Figures 1 to 4). There was significantly higher cell viability in AH-Plus samples compared to AH-26 at all dilutions, while the viability of cells in AH-Plus samples was significantly higher compared to Duraflur at 1/2 and 1/4 dilution (P<0.001). Duraflur showed significantly higher cell viability compared to AH-26 at all concentrations except for 1/2 dilutions (P<0.001) (Table 1 and Figures 1 to 4).


Cytotoxicity of two resin-based sealers and a fluoride varnish on human gingival fibroblasts.

Parirokh M, Forghani FR, Paseban H, Asgary S, Askarifard S, Esmaeeli Mahani S - Iran Endod J (2015)

Cell viability in control and the test groups
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4372780&req=5

Figure 4: Cell viability in control and the test groups
Mentions: All dilutions (1/2, 1/4, and 1/8) of the materials used in this study (AH-Plus, AH-26, and Duraflur) showed significantly lower cell viability compared to the control group (Figures 1 to 4). There was significantly higher cell viability in AH-Plus samples compared to AH-26 at all dilutions, while the viability of cells in AH-Plus samples was significantly higher compared to Duraflur at 1/2 and 1/4 dilution (P<0.001). Duraflur showed significantly higher cell viability compared to AH-26 at all concentrations except for 1/2 dilutions (P<0.001) (Table 1 and Figures 1 to 4).

Bottom Line: AH-Plus showed significantly greater cell viability compared to AH-26 at all dilutions (P<0.001); however, no significant difference was found between Duraflur and AH-Plus in terms of cell viability at 1/8 dilution (P>0.001).Duraflur showed significantly higher cell viability compared to AH-26 except at 1/2 dilution (P<0.001).Although Duraflur varnish had better biocompatibility compared to AH-26, it should still be evaluated with further biocompatibility tests such as intraosseous and subcutaneous implantation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Kerman Neuroscience Research Center, Institute of Neuropharmacology, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran;

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Assessment of cellular cytotoxicity is a regular method for evaluating the biocompatibility of novel materials. In a recent study, 5% fluoride varnish (Duraflur) has shown reasonable sealing ability and coverage of root canal walls when used as a sealer. The aim of the present study was to compare the cytotoxicity of Duraflur varnish with two popular commonly used root canal sealers (AH-Plus and AH-26) on human gingival fibroblasts (HGF).

Methods and materials: The HGFs were incubated with different concentrations (1/2, 1/4, and 1/8) of AH-plus, AH-26, and Duraflur varnish for 24 h. The percentage of cell viability was assessed with methyl-thiazol-tetrazolium (MTT) assay. The data was analyzed using the one-way ANOVA followed by Student-Newman-Keuls test. The level of significance was set at 0.001.

Results: MTT assay showed that higher concentrations of the tested materials resulted in lower viability of HGFs. AH-Plus showed significantly greater cell viability compared to AH-26 at all dilutions (P<0.001); however, no significant difference was found between Duraflur and AH-Plus in terms of cell viability at 1/8 dilution (P>0.001). Duraflur showed significantly higher cell viability compared to AH-26 except at 1/2 dilution (P<0.001).

Conclusion: Although Duraflur varnish had better biocompatibility compared to AH-26, it should still be evaluated with further biocompatibility tests such as intraosseous and subcutaneous implantation.

No MeSH data available.