J Korean Acad Conserv Dent.  2010 Sep;35(5):359-367. 10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.5.359.

Biocompatibility of experimental mixture of mineral trioxide aggregate and glass ionomer cement

• Oh MJ
• Jeong YN
• Bae IH
• Yang SY
• Park BJ
• Koh JT
• Hwang YC
• Hwang IN
• Oh WM

• KMID: 2176434
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.5.359

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the biocompatibility of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) mixed with glass ionomer cement (GIC), and to compare it with that of MTA, GIC, IRM and SuperEBA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental groups were divided into 3 groups such as 1 : 1, 2 : 1, and 1 : 2 groups depending on the mixing ratios of MTA powder and GIC powder. Instead of distilled water, GIC liquid was mixed with the powder. This study was carried out using MG-63 cells derived from human osteosarcoma. They were incubated for 1 day on the surfaces of disc samples and examined by scanning electron microscopy. To evaluate the cytotoxicity of test materials quantitatively, XTT assay was used. The cells were exposed to the extracts and incubated. Cell viability was recorded by measuring the optical density of each test well in reference to controls.
RESULTS
The SEM revealed that elongated, dense, and almost confluent cells were observed in the cultures of MTA mixed with GIC, MTA and GIC. On the contrary, cells on the surface of IRM or SuperEBA were round in shape. In XTT assay, cell viability of MTA mixed with GIC group was similar to that of MTA or GIC at all time points. IRM and SuperEBA showed significantly lower cell viability than other groups at all time points (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
In this research MTA mixed with GIC showed similar cellular responses as MTA and GIC. It suggests that MTA mixed with GIC has good biocompatibility like MTA and GIC.

Keyword

Biocompatibility; Cytotoxicity; Glass-ionomer cement; IRM; Mineral trioxide aggregate; SuperEBA

MeSH Terms

Acrylic Resins
Aluminum Compounds
Calcium Compounds
Cell Survival
Drug Combinations
Glass
Glass Ionomer Cements
Glutamates
Guanine
Humans
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Osteosarcoma
Oxides
Silicates
Silicon Dioxide
Water
Pemetrexed
Acrylic Resins
Aluminum Compounds
Calcium Compounds
Drug Combinations
Glass Ionomer Cements
Glutamates
Guanine
Oxides
Silicates
Silicon Dioxide
Water

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Cells after the incubation for 1 day (×1,000). a, 1 : 1 group; b, 2 : 1 group; c 1 : 2 group; d, MTA; e, GIC; f, IRM; g, SuperEBA. MTA, mineral trioxide aggregate; GIC, glass ionomer cement.

• 

  Figure 2 Relative viability of cells exposed to 1-day extracts. MTA, mineral trioxide aggregate; GIC, glass ionomer cement.

Reference

1. Koulaouzidou EA, Economides N, Beltes P, Geromichalos G, Papazisis K. In vitro evaluation of the cytotoxicity of ProRoot MTA and MTA Angelus. J Oral Sci. 2008. 50:397–402.

2. Torabinejad M, Hong CU, McDonald F, Pitt Ford TR. Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material. J Endod. 1995. 21:349–353.

3. Bodrumlu E. Biocompatibility of retrograde root filling materials: a review. Aust Endod J. 2008. 34:30–35.

4. Torabinejad M, Hong CU, Pitt Ford TR, Kettering JD. Cytotoxicity of four root end filling materials. J Endod. 1995. 21:489–492.

5. Kwon JY, Lim SS, Baek SH, Bae KS, Kang MH, Lee WC. The Effect of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate on the Production of Growth Factors and Cytokine by Human Periodontal Ligament Fibroblasts. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2007. 32:191–197.

6. Huang TH, Yang CC, Ding SJ, Yan M, Chou MY, Kao CT. Biocompatibility of human osteosarcoma cells to root end filling materials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005. 72:140–145.

7. Kang MK, Bae IH, Koh JT, Hwang YC, Hwang IN, Oh WM. Comparison of Biocompatibility of Four Root perforation repair Materials. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2009. 34:192–198.

8. Koh ET, McDonald F, Pitt Ford TR, Torabinejad M. Cellular response to Mineral Trioxide Aggregate. J Endod. 1998. 24:543–547.

9. Yun YR, Yang IS, Hwang YC, Hwang IN, Choi HR, Yoon SJ, Kim SH, Oh WM. Pulp response of Mineral trioxide aggregate, calcium sulfate or calcium hydroxide. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2007. 32:95–101.

10. Torabinejad M, Hong CU, Lee SJ, Monsef M, Pitt Ford TR. Investigation of mineral trioxide aggregate for root-end filling in dogs. J Endod. 1995. 21:603–608.

11. Torabinejad M, Pitt Ford TR, McKendry DJ, Abedi HR, Miller DA, Kariyawasam SP. Histologic assessment of mineral trioxide aggregate as a root-end filling in monkeys. J Endod. 1997. 23:225–228.

12. Koh ET, Torabinejad M, Pitt Ford TR, Brady K, McDonald F. Mineral trioxide aggregate stimulates a biological response in human osteoblasts. J Biomed Mater Res. 1997. 37:432–439.

13. Koh ET, McDonald F, Pitt Ford TR, Torabinejad M. Cellular response to Mineral Trioxide Aggregate. J Endod. 1998. 24:543–547.

14. Schwartz RS, Mauger M, Clement DJ, Walker WA 3rd. Mineral trioxide aggregate: a new material for endodontics. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999. 130:967–975.

15. De Bruyne MA, De Moor RJ. The use of glass ionomer cements in both conventional and surgical endodontics. Int Endod J. 2004. 37:91–104.

16. de Souza Costa CA, Hebling J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hanks CT. In vitro cytotoxicity of glass-ionomer cements. Biomaterials. 2003. 24:3853–3858.

17. Holland R, Mazuqueli L, de Souza V, Murata SS, Dezan Júnior E, Suzuki P. Influence of the type of vehicle and limit of obturation on apical and periapical tissue response in dogs' teeth after root canal fillingwith mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod. 2007. 33:693–693.

18. Karimjee CK, Koka S, Rallis DM, Gound TG. Cellular toxicity of mineral trioxide aggregate mixed with an alternative delivery vehicle. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006. 102:e115–e120.

19. Jafarnia B, Jiang J, He J, Wang YH, Safavi KE, Zhu Q. Evaluation of cytotoxicity of MTA employing various additives. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009. 107:739–744.

20. Zhu Q, Haglund R, Safavi KE, Spangberg LS. Adhesion of human osteoblasts on root-end filling materials. J Endod. 2000. 26:404–406.

21. Gandolfi MG, Perut F, Ciapetti G, Mongiorgi R, Prati C. New Portland cement-based materials for endodontics mixed with articaine solution: a study of cellular response. J Endod. 2008. 34:39–44.

22. Liu HC, Lee IC, Wang JH, Yang SH, Young TH. Preparation of PLLA membranes with different morphologies for culture of MG-63 Cells. Biomaterials. 2004. 25:4047–4056.

23. Al-Sabek F, Shostad S, Kirkwood KL. Preferential attachment of human gingival fibroblasts to the resin ionomer Geristore. J Endod. 2005. 31:205–208.

24. Scudiero DA, Shoemaker RH, Paull KD, Monks A, Tierney S, Nofziger TH, Currens MJ, Seniff D, Boyd MR. Evaluation of a soluble tetrazolium/formazan assay for cell growth and drug sensitivity in culture using human and other tumor cell lines. Cancer Res. 1988. 48:4827–4833.

25. Johnson BR. Considerations in the selection of a rootend filling material. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999. 87:398–404.