SourceJ Clin Pediatr Dent 2012; 36(3)
To evaluate the biocompatibility of glass ionomer cement (GIC) impregnated with collagen or bioactive glass to BHK-21 fibroblasts in vitro. Mineral Trioxide Aggregate was used as the standard for comparison. Human maxillary central incisors (n = 70) were instrumented with a rotary NiTi system and filled. Following resection of the apical 3mm, root end cavities were prepared and restored with conventional GIC (group 1) or GIC with 0.01%, 0.1% or 1% collagen (groups 2, 3, 4 respectively) or, 10%, 30% or 50% bioactive glass (groups 5, 6, 7 respectively), or Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (group 8). The root slices were incubated in tissue culture plates with BHK-21 fibroblast cell line. Phase contrast and scanning electron microscopes were used to score cell quantity, morphology and cell attachment. The data were statistically analyzed by one way ANOVA with Post Hoc Tukey HSD test (p = 0.05).Group 5 showed the highest scores which was significantly higher than all other groups (p < 0.05) except group 8, with which there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). Glass ionomer cement with 10% bioactive glass showed better adhesion and spreading of cells than glass ionomer cement with 0.01% collagen. The biocompatibility of collagen and bioactive glass was concentration dependent. The addition of bioactive glass improved the biocompatibility of glass ionomer cement to fibroblasts better than addition of collagen.
MeshAluminum CompoundsAnimalsApicoectomyBiocompatible MaterialsCalcium CompoundsCell AdhesionCell CountCell Culture TechniquesCell LineCell ShapeCeramicsCollagenCricetinaeDrug CombinationsFibroblastsGlassGlass Ionomer CementsHumansIncisorMaterials TestingMesocricetusMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningMicroscopy, Phase-ContrastOxidesRetrograde ObturationRoot Canal Filling MaterialsSilicates
Comparative Study Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial