MEDLINE Journals

    In vitro biocompatibility tests of glass ionomer cements impregnated with collagen or bioactive glass to fibroblasts.

    Authors
    Subbarao C, Neelakantan P, Subbarao CV 
    Institution

    Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.

    Source
    J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012; 36(3) :269-74.
    Abstract

    AIM AND
    DESIGN: 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).
    RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 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.

    Mesh
    Aluminum Compounds
    Animals
    Apicoectomy
    Biocompatible Materials
    Calcium Compounds
    Cell Adhesion
    Cell Count
    Cell Culture Techniques
    Cell Line
    Cell Shape
    Ceramics
    Collagen
    Cricetinae
    Drug Combinations
    Fibroblasts
    Glass
    Glass Ionomer Cements
    Humans
    Incisor
    Materials Testing
    Mesocricetus
    Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
    Microscopy, Phase-Contrast
    Oxides
    Retrograde Obturation
    Root Canal Filling Materials
    Silicates
    Language

    eng

    Pub Type(s)
    Comparative Study Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial
    PubMed ID

    22838229

    Content Manager
    Related Content

    Effect of ProRoot MTA, Portland cement, and amalgam on the expression of fibronectin, collagen I, and TGFβ by human periodontal ligament fibroblasts in vitro.

    Cytotoxicity of newly developed ortho MTA root-end filling materials.

    Histological evaluation of rat tissue response to GMTA, Retroplast, and Geristore retrograde filling materials.

    Reaction of dogs' teeth to root canal filling with mineral trioxide aggregate or a glass ionomer sealer.

    Antiproliferative effect of mineral trioxide aggregate, zinc oxide-eugenol cement, and glass-ionomer cement against three fibroblastic cell lines.

    Periodontal ligament fibroblast response to root perforations restored with different materials: a laboratory study.

    Marginal adaptation and cytotoxicity of bone cement compared with amalgam and mineral trioxide aggregate as root-end filling materials.

    A comparison of the effects of two kinds of glass-ionomer cement on human gingival fibroblast attachment, proliferation and morphology in vitro.