Comparing the Adhesion Capability of Periodontal Ligament Fibroblast Cells to Nano-hydroxyapatite Silicate-Based Cement and Silicate-Based Cement Alone
H. Khorshidi, Shahab Honar, S. Raoofi, N. Azarpira
{"title":"Comparing the Adhesion Capability of Periodontal Ligament Fibroblast Cells to Nano-hydroxyapatite Silicate-Based Cement and Silicate-Based Cement Alone","authors":"H. Khorshidi, Shahab Honar, S. Raoofi, N. Azarpira","doi":"10.22038/JDMT.2021.54641.1414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Silicate-based cement alone and Hydroxyapatite as bone filling materials lead to successful results in implant dentistry and regenerative medicine. The purpose of this study was to compare the adhesion capability of periodontal ligament fibroblast cells (PDLFC) to the Nanohydroxyapatite silicate-based cement and silicate-based cement alone in vitro. Methods: Primary cell cultures of PDLFCs were obtained from clinically healthy third molars teeth. These third molars were either extracted for orthodontic reasons or extracted due to the impaction of teeth. Cells subcultured at a density of 10000 cells/well in 24-well plates. Methyl-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay was performed to evaluate the survival and proliferation of fibroblasts on 24h, 72h, and 1week after the cell culture. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis was used to examine the morphology of PDLFCs on the two scaffolds. Results: Cells were found growing in close proximity to both minerals but in terms of fibroblast cell attachment. Adding Nanohydroxyapatite did not improve cellular proliferation and silicate-based cement alone showed superior cellular proliferation in 72 hours. After 24h and 1week both minerals showed the same response. Conclusion: Although both Nanohydroxyapatite silicate-based cement and silicate-based cement alone are biocompatible, but nanohydroxyapatite silicate-based cement did not show improved biological activities when compared with silicate-based cement.","PeriodicalId":15640,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques","volume":"33 11 1","pages":"79-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/JDMT.2021.54641.1414","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Silicate-based cement alone and Hydroxyapatite as bone filling materials lead to successful results in implant dentistry and regenerative medicine. The purpose of this study was to compare the adhesion capability of periodontal ligament fibroblast cells (PDLFC) to the Nanohydroxyapatite silicate-based cement and silicate-based cement alone in vitro. Methods: Primary cell cultures of PDLFCs were obtained from clinically healthy third molars teeth. These third molars were either extracted for orthodontic reasons or extracted due to the impaction of teeth. Cells subcultured at a density of 10000 cells/well in 24-well plates. Methyl-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay was performed to evaluate the survival and proliferation of fibroblasts on 24h, 72h, and 1week after the cell culture. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis was used to examine the morphology of PDLFCs on the two scaffolds. Results: Cells were found growing in close proximity to both minerals but in terms of fibroblast cell attachment. Adding Nanohydroxyapatite did not improve cellular proliferation and silicate-based cement alone showed superior cellular proliferation in 72 hours. After 24h and 1week both minerals showed the same response. Conclusion: Although both Nanohydroxyapatite silicate-based cement and silicate-based cement alone are biocompatible, but nanohydroxyapatite silicate-based cement did not show improved biological activities when compared with silicate-based cement.