J Korean Acad Conserv Dent.  2003 Mar;28(2):162-168. 10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.2.162.

Cytotoxicity and antibacterial property of new resin-based sealer

• Park SY
• Lee WC
• Lim SS

• KMID: 1987244
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.2.162

Abstract

No abstract available.

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Viable rate by cytotoxicity test (%)

• 

  Fig. 2 Inhibition zone by agar diffusion test (mm) (A : Sealapex, B : Tubliseal EWT, C : Pulpcanal sealer EWT, D : AH 26, E : AH plus, F : Adseal)

• 

  Fig. 3 Cell appearance after 6hrs setting and 24hrs incubation (Giemsa stain and inverted microscope ×400) Here, each sealer has two pictures. The left shows the cell appearance observed by the Giemsa Stain, and the right by inverted microscopy. Many more cells appear in the case of Adseal than they are in the cases of the other sealers. (A: Adseal, B: AH 26, C: AH plus, D: Tubliseal EWT, E: Pulpcanal sealer EWT, F: Sealapex)

• 

  Fig. 4 Inhibition zone by Agar diffusion test (Adseal and AH 26) This shows inhibition zones of Adseal (left) and AH 26 (right) against each microorganism. Adseal barely works against E. faecalis, but it shows very broad inhibition zones against black-pigmented bacteria in general and P. endodontalis in particular. These results of the experiment lead us to conclude that in comparison with AH 26, Adseal has excellent antibacterial effects against microorganisms tested excluding E. faecalis

Reference

1. Browne RM. The in vitro assessment of the cytotoxicity of dental materials - does it have a role? Int Endod J. 1988. 21:50–58.

2. Geurtsen W, Leyhausen G. Biological aspects of root filling materials-histocompatibility, cytotoxicity, and mutagenicity. Clin Oral Investig. 1997. 1:5–11.

3. Koulaouzidou EA, Papazisis KT, Beltes P, Geromichalos GD, Kortsaris AH. Cytotoxicity of three resin-based root canal sealers: an in vitro evaluation. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1998. 14:182–185.

4. Schmalz G. Concepts in biocompatibility testing of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 1997. 1:154–162.

5. Sundqvist G. Ecology of the root canal flora. J Endod. 1992. 18:427–430.

6. Sundqvist G, Figdor D. Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative retreatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998. 85:86–93.

7. Cohen S, Burns RC. Pathways of the pulp. 2002. 8th ed. Mosby;501–520.

8. Briseno BM, Willershausen B. Root canal sealer cytotoxicity on human gingival fibroblasts. I. Zinc oxide-eugenol-based sealers. J Endod. 1990. 16:383–386.

9. Gordon TM, Ranly DM, Boyan BD. The effects of calcium hydroxide on bovine pulp tissue:variations in pH and calcium concentration. J Endod. 1985. 11:156–160.

10. Briseño BM, Willershausen B. Root canal sealer cytotoxicity with human gingival fibroblasts. III. Calcium hydroxide-based sealers. J Endod. 1992. 18:110–113.

11. Beltes P, Koulaouzidou E, Kotoula V, Kortsaris AH. In vitro evaluation of the cytotoxicity of calcium hydroxide-based root canal sealers. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1995. 11:245–249.

12. Briseño BM, Willershausen B. Root canal sealer cytotoxicity on human gingival fibroblasts. II. Silicone- and resin-based sealers. J Endod. 1991. 17:537–540.

13. Chohayeb AA, Chow LC, Tsaknis PJ. Evaluation of calcium phosphate as a root canal sealer-filler material. J Endod. 1987. 13:384.

14. Sugawara A, Kusama K, Nishimura S, Nishiyama M, Chow LC, Takagi S. Biocompatibility and osteoconductivity of calcium phosphate cement. J Dent Res. 1990. 69:1628.