Antonija Tadin, Marija Badrov, Danijela Juric Kacunic, Nada Galic, Matea Macan, Ivan Kovacic, Davor Zeljezic
{"title":"生物陶瓷牙髓封闭剂对HepG2和V79细胞系的遗传毒性和细胞毒性评价：采用彗星和微核试验的体外研究","authors":"Antonija Tadin, Marija Badrov, Danijela Juric Kacunic, Nada Galic, Matea Macan, Ivan Kovacic, Davor Zeljezic","doi":"10.3390/jfb16050169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of calcium silicate-based sealers (BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex) compared to an epoxy-based sealer (AH Plus).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study was conducted in vitro with the cell lines HepG2 and V79 to evaluate cytotoxicity and genotoxicity using the comet and micronucleus assays. Eluates of the materials were tested at two different concentrations (3 cm<sup>2</sup>/mL and 0.5 cm<sup>2</sup>/mL) after an exposure time of 72 h. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At lower concentrations in both cell lines, MTA Fillapex showed no significant difference in the measured comet assay parameters compared to the negative control (<i>p</i> > 0.05). In addition, it showed significantly lower genotoxic effects compared to AH Plus for all comet assay parameters, concentrations, and cell lines (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.001). BioRoot RCS showed lower primary DNA damage (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.001) than AH Plus, only at higher concentrations and in the HepG2 cell line. Concerning the two tested bioceramic sealers, BioRoot RCS showed higher tail intensity values compared to MTA Fillapex (<i>p</i> < 0.05). In contrast to the results of the comet assay, BioRoot RCS significantly reduced the number of nuclear buds and nucleoplasmic bridges in the HepG2 cell line compared to MTA Fillapex, whereas reduction in the V79 cell line was only observed for nuclear buds (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Both materials increased the number of apoptotic cells compared to the negative control (<i>p</i> < 0.05). In comparison to AH Plus, BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex significantly reduced the number of cells with micronuclei and increased the number of cells with undamaged chromatin (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggest that MTA Fillapex and BioRoot RCS exhibit superior biocompatibility over AH Plus, as evidenced by their lower cytotoxic and genotoxic effects in vitro. These results support the use of calcium silicate-based sealers in clinical practice, highlighting the need for further studies to evaluate their performance in vivo and their implications for patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":15767,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Functional Biomaterials","volume":"16 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12112312/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Genotoxicity and Cytotoxicity of Bioceramic Endodontic Sealers in HepG2 and V79 Cell Lines: An In Vitro Study Using the Comet and Micronucleus Assays.\",\"authors\":\"Antonija Tadin, Marija Badrov, Danijela Juric Kacunic, Nada Galic, Matea Macan, Ivan Kovacic, Davor Zeljezic\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jfb16050169\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of calcium silicate-based sealers (BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex) compared to an epoxy-based sealer (AH Plus).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study was conducted in vitro with the cell lines HepG2 and V79 to evaluate cytotoxicity and genotoxicity using the comet and micronucleus assays. Eluates of the materials were tested at two different concentrations (3 cm<sup>2</sup>/mL and 0.5 cm<sup>2</sup>/mL) after an exposure time of 72 h. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At lower concentrations in both cell lines, MTA Fillapex showed no significant difference in the measured comet assay parameters compared to the negative control (<i>p</i> > 0.05). In addition, it showed significantly lower genotoxic effects compared to AH Plus for all comet assay parameters, concentrations, and cell lines (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.001). BioRoot RCS showed lower primary DNA damage (<i>p</i> ≤ 0.001) than AH Plus, only at higher concentrations and in the HepG2 cell line. Concerning the two tested bioceramic sealers, BioRoot RCS showed higher tail intensity values compared to MTA Fillapex (<i>p</i> < 0.05). In contrast to the results of the comet assay, BioRoot RCS significantly reduced the number of nuclear buds and nucleoplasmic bridges in the HepG2 cell line compared to MTA Fillapex, whereas reduction in the V79 cell line was only observed for nuclear buds (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Both materials increased the number of apoptotic cells compared to the negative control (<i>p</i> < 0.05). In comparison to AH Plus, BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex significantly reduced the number of cells with micronuclei and increased the number of cells with undamaged chromatin (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings suggest that MTA Fillapex and BioRoot RCS exhibit superior biocompatibility over AH Plus, as evidenced by their lower cytotoxic and genotoxic effects in vitro. These results support the use of calcium silicate-based sealers in clinical practice, highlighting the need for further studies to evaluate their performance in vivo and their implications for patient safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15767,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Functional Biomaterials\",\"volume\":\"16 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12112312/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Functional Biomaterials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16050169\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Functional Biomaterials","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16050169","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of the Genotoxicity and Cytotoxicity of Bioceramic Endodontic Sealers in HepG2 and V79 Cell Lines: An In Vitro Study Using the Comet and Micronucleus Assays.
Background: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of calcium silicate-based sealers (BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex) compared to an epoxy-based sealer (AH Plus).
Materials and methods: The study was conducted in vitro with the cell lines HepG2 and V79 to evaluate cytotoxicity and genotoxicity using the comet and micronucleus assays. Eluates of the materials were tested at two different concentrations (3 cm2/mL and 0.5 cm2/mL) after an exposure time of 72 h. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests (p < 0.05).
Results: At lower concentrations in both cell lines, MTA Fillapex showed no significant difference in the measured comet assay parameters compared to the negative control (p > 0.05). In addition, it showed significantly lower genotoxic effects compared to AH Plus for all comet assay parameters, concentrations, and cell lines (p ≤ 0.001). BioRoot RCS showed lower primary DNA damage (p ≤ 0.001) than AH Plus, only at higher concentrations and in the HepG2 cell line. Concerning the two tested bioceramic sealers, BioRoot RCS showed higher tail intensity values compared to MTA Fillapex (p < 0.05). In contrast to the results of the comet assay, BioRoot RCS significantly reduced the number of nuclear buds and nucleoplasmic bridges in the HepG2 cell line compared to MTA Fillapex, whereas reduction in the V79 cell line was only observed for nuclear buds (p < 0.05). Both materials increased the number of apoptotic cells compared to the negative control (p < 0.05). In comparison to AH Plus, BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex significantly reduced the number of cells with micronuclei and increased the number of cells with undamaged chromatin (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: The findings suggest that MTA Fillapex and BioRoot RCS exhibit superior biocompatibility over AH Plus, as evidenced by their lower cytotoxic and genotoxic effects in vitro. These results support the use of calcium silicate-based sealers in clinical practice, highlighting the need for further studies to evaluate their performance in vivo and their implications for patient safety.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Functional Biomaterials (JFB, ISSN 2079-4983) is an international and interdisciplinary scientific journal that publishes regular research papers (articles), reviews and short communications about applications of materials for biomedical use. JFB covers subjects from chemistry, pharmacy, biology, physics over to engineering. The journal focuses on the preparation, performance and use of functional biomaterials in biomedical devices and their behaviour in physiological environments. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their results in as much detail as possible. Therefore, there is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Several topical special issues will be published. Scope: adhesion, adsorption, biocompatibility, biohybrid materials, bio-inert materials, biomaterials, biomedical devices, biomimetic materials, bone repair, cardiovascular devices, ceramics, composite materials, dental implants, dental materials, drug delivery systems, functional biopolymers, glasses, hyper branched polymers, molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs), nanomedicine, nanoparticles, nanotechnology, natural materials, self-assembly smart materials, stimuli responsive materials, surface modification, tissue devices, tissue engineering, tissue-derived materials, urological devices.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
