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.
牙周韧带成纤维细胞与纳米羟基磷灰石硅酸盐基水泥和单独硅酸盐基水泥的粘附能力比较
硅酸盐水泥和羟基磷灰石作为骨填充材料在种植牙科和再生医学中取得了成功的结果。本研究的目的是比较牙周韧带成纤维细胞(PDLFC)与纳米羟基磷灰石硅酸盐基水泥和单独硅酸盐基水泥的体外粘附能力。方法:从临床健康的第三磨牙中获得PDLFCs原代细胞培养。这些第三磨牙要么是由于正畸原因,要么是由于牙齿嵌塞而被拔除。细胞在24孔板中传代,密度为10000个细胞/孔。采用甲基溴化四氮唑(MTT)测定成纤维细胞在培养后24小时、72小时和1周的存活和增殖情况。采用扫描电镜(SEM)分析了两种支架上pdlfc的形态。结果:细胞在两种矿物质附近生长,但在成纤维细胞附着方面。添加纳米羟基磷灰石不能促进细胞增殖,单独添加硅酸盐水泥在72小时内表现出更好的细胞增殖。24小时和1周后,两种矿物质表现出相同的反应。结论:虽然纳米羟基磷灰石硅酸盐基水泥和单独的硅酸盐基水泥都具有生物相容性,但纳米羟基磷灰石硅酸盐基水泥与硅酸盐基水泥相比并没有表现出更好的生物活性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信