Comparative Evaluation of Cytotoxicity of Fluoride Varnish as Root Canal Sealer against L929 Mouse Fibroblasts with Conventional Endodontic Sealers

Erfan Hosseini, Mahdi Lomee, J. Charati, Abolfazl Hosseinnataj, Salma Omidi
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Cytotoxicity of Fluoride Varnish as Root Canal Sealer against L929 Mouse Fibroblasts with Conventional Endodontic Sealers","authors":"Erfan Hosseini, Mahdi Lomee, J. Charati, Abolfazl Hosseinnataj, Salma Omidi","doi":"10.22038/JDMT.2021.48368.1372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This study aimed to assess the cytotoxicity of Duraflur fluoride varnish as root canal sealer against L929 mouse fibroblasts in comparison with four commonly used conventional endodontic sealers in the first 48 hours of exposure. Methods: In this in vitro, experimental study, L929 mouse fibroblasts were exposed to 1/1, ½, ¼ , and 1/8 concentrations of Duraflur fluoride varnish, AH Plus, Fill Canal, MTA Fillapex, and AH26 sealers. After 48 hours, the methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium (MTT) assay was performed to assess the cytotoxicity of sealers. Cell viability was determined as the percentage of viable cells compared with the control group. The results were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey’s post hoc test for multiple comparisons.. Results: MTA Fillapex had the lowest and AH26 had the highest cytotoxicity (p <0.05). Fluoride varnish showed high cell viability in 1/8 concentration (91.09%). Its cytotoxicity was close to that of AH Plus with no significant difference (P=0.49) but it had higher cytotoxicity than Fill Canal and Fill Apex (p <0.05). Fluoride varnish in 1/1 and 1/8 concentrations showed significantly higher cell viability than AH26 (p <0.001). Conclusion: Fluoride varnish sealer has acceptable biocompatibility comparable to that of conventional sealers. It has lower cytotoxicity than AH26.","PeriodicalId":15640,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques","volume":"34 1","pages":"133-141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","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.2021.48368.1372","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: This study aimed to assess the cytotoxicity of Duraflur fluoride varnish as root canal sealer against L929 mouse fibroblasts in comparison with four commonly used conventional endodontic sealers in the first 48 hours of exposure. Methods: In this in vitro, experimental study, L929 mouse fibroblasts were exposed to 1/1, ½, ¼ , and 1/8 concentrations of Duraflur fluoride varnish, AH Plus, Fill Canal, MTA Fillapex, and AH26 sealers. After 48 hours, the methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium (MTT) assay was performed to assess the cytotoxicity of sealers. Cell viability was determined as the percentage of viable cells compared with the control group. The results were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey’s post hoc test for multiple comparisons.. Results: MTA Fillapex had the lowest and AH26 had the highest cytotoxicity (p <0.05). Fluoride varnish showed high cell viability in 1/8 concentration (91.09%). Its cytotoxicity was close to that of AH Plus with no significant difference (P=0.49) but it had higher cytotoxicity than Fill Canal and Fill Apex (p <0.05). Fluoride varnish in 1/1 and 1/8 concentrations showed significantly higher cell viability than AH26 (p <0.001). Conclusion: Fluoride varnish sealer has acceptable biocompatibility comparable to that of conventional sealers. It has lower cytotoxicity than AH26.
氟化物清漆作为根管封闭剂对L929小鼠成纤维细胞的细胞毒性与常规根管封闭剂的比较
本研究旨在评估Duraflur氟化清漆作为根管密封剂对L929小鼠成纤维细胞的细胞毒性,并与四种常用的传统根管密封剂进行比较。方法:在体外实验研究中,L929小鼠成纤维细胞暴露于1/1、1/ 2、1/ 4和1/8浓度的Duraflur氟化物清漆、AH Plus、Fill Canal、MTA Fillapex和AH26密封剂中。48小时后,采用甲基噻唑四氮唑(MTT)法评估封耳鼠的细胞毒性。细胞活力测定为与对照组相比存活细胞的百分比。结果采用单因素方差分析,然后采用Tukey’s事后检验进行多重比较。结果:MTA Fillapex的细胞毒性最低,AH26的细胞毒性最高(p <0.05)。氟化物清漆在1/8浓度时具有较高的细胞存活率(91.09%)。其细胞毒性与AH Plus接近,差异无统计学意义(P=0.49),但其细胞毒性高于填充管和填充尖(P <0.05)。1/1和1/8氟清漆的细胞活力显著高于AH26 (p <0.001)。结论:氟化物清漆与常规封口剂相比具有良好的生物相容性。它具有比AH26更低的细胞毒性。
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