Biocompatibility Assessment of A New MTA Versus Ceramic Based Endodontic Root Canal Sealers

Noha Abdel-Mawla El-Wassefy¹, Dina Sami Farahat², Mahitabe Elgamily³, Mohamed Ibrahim Salman^4, and Hussein Abdel Hameed El shikha⁵

¹Associate professor of Dental Biomaterials Faculty of Dentistry Mansoura University, postal code 35516

²Lecturer of Dental Biomaterials Faculty of Dentistry Mansoura University, postal code 35516

³Lecturer of Oral Biology Faculty of Dentistry Mansoura University postal code 35516

⁴Associate professor of Endodontic Faculty of Dentistry Mansoura University, postal code 35516

⁵Research intern, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, postal code 35516

Cite this paper:
Noha Abdel-Mawla El-Wassefy, Dina Sami Farahat, Mahitabe Elgamily, Mohamed Ibrahim Salman and Hussein Abdel Hameed El shikha. Biocompatibility Assessment of A New MTA Versus Ceramic Based Endodontic Root Canal Sealers. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2020; 8(2):35-40. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-8-2-2

Abstract

Connective tissue response and push-out bond strengths of a new (mineral trioxide aggregate) MTA based endodontic sealer were evaluated.Polyethylene tubes containing ProRoot ES and Endosequence BC sealers were subcutaneously implanted in 45 rats. After 3, 7, 30 days the animals were euthanized, and the specimens were evaluated histologically. Bond strengths of the sealers to root dentine were measured using a push-out bond strength test.Scores of the inflammatory tissue reaction for ProRoot® ES were significantly lower than BC sealer group at 3 days with a thinner fibrous capsule at 30 days. Also, they were not significantly different from the control group. The push-out bond strength of ProRoot® ES could not be evaluated due to handling problems, nevertheless the measured Endosequence BC bond strengths were within an acceptable range.ProRoot® ES had better biocompatibility, seen as more favorable tissue response, than the BC Sealer, although the latter had improved handling characteristics.

Keywords:
endodontic sealers biocompatibility push out bond strength MTA Endosequence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Siqueira JF Jr, Rôças IN. Clinical implications and microbiology of bacterial persistence after treatment procedures. J Endod. 2008 Nov; 34(11): 1291-301.e3.
[2]	Pinheiro LS, Iglesias JE, Boijink D, Mestieri LB, Kopper PMP, de PoliFigueiredo JA, et al. Cell Viability and Tissue Reaction of NeoMTA Plus: An In Vitro and In Vivo Study. J Endod. 2018; 44(7): 1140-5.
[3]	Islam I, Chng HK, Yap AUJ. X-ray diffraction analysis of mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement. IntEndod J. 2006 Mar; 39(3): 220-5.
[4]	Han L, Kodama S, Okiji T. Evaluation of calcium-releasing and apatite-forming abilities of fast-setting calcium silicate-based endodontic materials. IntEndod J. 2015 Feb; 48(2): 124-30.
[5]	Belío-Reyes IA, Bucio L, Cruz-Chavez E. Phase composition of ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate by X-ray powder diffraction. J Endod. 2009 Jun; 35(6): 875-8.
[6]	Saghiri MA, Asatourian A, Orangi J, Lotfi M, Soukup JW, Garcia-Godoy F, et al. Effect of particle size on calcium release and elevation of pH of endodontic cements. Dent Traumatol. 2015 Jun; 31(3): 196-201.
[7]	Xuereb M, Vella P, Damidot D, Sammut CV, Camilleri J. In situ assessment of the setting of tricalcium silicate-based sealers using a dentinpressure model. J Endod. 2015 Jan; 41(1): 111-24.
[8]	Camilleri J. Hydration Characteristics of Calcium Silicate Cements with Alternative Radiopacifiers Used as Root-end Filling Materials. J Endod. 2010; 36(3): 502-8.
[9]	Chen C-C, Ho C-C, David Chen C-H, Ding S-J. Physicochemical properties of calcium silicate cements for endodontic treatment. J Endod. 2009 Sep; 35(9): 1288-91.
[10]	Song M, Kim H-C, Lee W, Kim E. Analysis of the cause of failure in nonsurgical endodontic treatment by microscopic inspection during endodontic microsurgery. J Endod. 2011 Nov; 37(11): 1516-9.
[11]	Metgud SS, Shah HH, Hiremath HT, Agarwal D, Reddy K. Effect of post space preparation on the sealing ability of mineral trioxide aggregate and Gutta-percha: A bacterial leakage study. J Conserv Dent. 2015 Jul; 18(4): 297-301.
[12]	Sousa-Neto MD, Silva Coelho FI, Marchesan MA, Alfredo E, Silva-Sousa YTC. Ex vivo study of the adhesion of an epoxy-based sealer to human dentine submitted to irradiation with Er: YAG and Nd : YAG lasers. IntEndod J. 2005 Dec; 38(12): 866-70.
[13]	Yaltirik M, Ozbas H, Bilgic B, Issever H. Reactions of connective tissue to mineral trioxide aggregate and amalgam. J Endod. 2004 Feb; 30(2): 95-9.
[14]	Patil A, Dodwad K, Patil A. An in vitro comparison of bond strengths of Gutta-percha/AH Plus, Resilon/Epiphany self-etch and EndoREZobturation system to intraradicular dentin using a push-out test design. J Conserv Dent. 2013; 16(3): 238.
[15]	Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2008; 29(20): 2941-53.
[16]	Bósio CC, Felippe GS, Bortoluzzi EA, Felippe MCS, Felippe WT, Rivero ERC. Subcutaneous connective tissue reactions to iRoot SP, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Fillapex, DiaRootBioAggregate and MTA. IntEndod J. 2014 Jul; 47(7): 667-74.
[17]	Cintra LTA, Bernabé PFE, de Moraes IG, Gomes-Filho JE, Okamoto T, Consolaro A, et al. Evaluation of subcutaneous and alveolar implantation surgical sites in the study of the biological properties of root-end filling endodontic materials. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18(1): 75-82.
[18]	Khalil WA, Abunasef SK. Can Mineral Trioxide Aggregate and NanoparticulateEndoSequence Root Repair Material Produce Injurious Effects to Rat Subcutaneous Tissues? J Endod. 2015 Jul; 41(7): 1151-6.
[19]	Gomes-Filho JE, Watanabe S, Lodi CS, Cintra LTA, Nery MJ, Filho JAO, et al. Rat tissue reaction to MTA FILLAPEX®. Dent Traumatol. 2011; 28(6): 452-6.
[20]	Taha NA, Safadi RA, Alwedaie MS. Biocompatibility Evaluation of EndoSequence Root Repair Paste in the Connective Tissue of Rats. J Endod. 2016 Oct; 42(10): 1523-8.
[21]	Aguilar FG, Roberti Garcia LF, PanzeriPires-de-Souza FC. Biocompatibility of new calcium aluminate cement (EndoBinder). J Endod. 2012 Mar; 38(3): 367-71.
[22]	Tavares CO, Böttcher DE, Assmann E, Kopper PMP, de Figueiredo JAP, Grecca FS, et al. Tissue Reactions to a New Mineral Trioxide Aggregate-containing Endodontic Sealer. J Endod. 2013; 39(5): 653-7.
[23]	Lim E-S, Park Y-B, Kwon Y-S, Shon W-J, Lee K-W, Min K-S. Physical properties and biocompatibility of an injectable calcium-silicate-based root canal sealer: in vitro and in vivo study. BMC Oral Health. 2015; 15(1): 129.
[24]	Mussel RLDO, De Sá Silva E, Costa AMA, Mandarim-De-Lacerda CA. Mast cells in tissue response to dentistry materials: an adhesive resin, a calcium hydroxide and a glass ionomer cement. J Cell Mol Med. 2003 Apr; 7(2): 171-8.
[25]	Shahi S, Rahimi S, Lotfi M, Yavari H, Gaderian A. A Comparative Study of the Biocompatibility of Three Root-end Filling Materials in Rat Connective Tissue. J Endod. 2006; 32(8): 776-80.
[26]	Parirokh M, Torabinejad M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review--Part III: Clinical applications, drawbacks, and mechanism of action. J Endod. 2010 Mar; 36(3): 400-13.
[27]	Olsson B, Sliwkowski A, Langeland K. Subcutaneous implantation for the biological evaluation of endodontic materials. J Endod. 1981 Aug; 7(8): 355-67.
[28]	Carvalho CN, Grazziotin-Soares R, de Miranda Candeiro GT, Gallego Martinez L, de Souza JP, Santos Oliveira P, et al. Micro Push-out Bond Strength and Bioactivity Analysis of a Bioceramic Root Canal Sealer. Iran Endod J. 2017 Summer; 12(3): 343-8.
[29]	Donnermeyer D, Dornseifer P, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. The push-out bond strength of calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers. Head Face Med. 2018 Aug 20; 14(1): 13.