Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

In vitro evaluation of different dental materials used for the treatment of extensive cervical root defects using human periodontal cells

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Repair materials for extensive cervical root defects may come in direct contact with periodontal tissues. This in vitro study compared the effects of four calcium silicate cements (CSC), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and one glass carbomer cement on primary human gingival fibroblasts (HGF), alveolar osteoblasts (HAO), and a human osteoblast cell line (hFOB 1.19).

Methods

HGF, HAO, and hFOB were seeded on discoid test specimens. Relative numbers of viable cells were quantitatively assessed after 1 and 24 h for cytotoxicity/adhesion assays and after 4, 24, 48, and 72 h for proliferation assays. Data were statistically analyzed using non-parametric tests (α = 0.05).

Results

Relative to the control (100 %), CSC allowed for mean numbers of 71–81 % viable HGF and 80–82 % viable HAO. Then, 64 % of HGF and 56 % of HAO were assessed on GC Fuji II LC. Mean numbers of viable cells were 59–64 % HGF and 67–68 % HAO for GCP Glass Fill specimens. Cells exposed to CSC over 24 h remained viable and even increased in number. Both cell types adhered almost equally well to CSC and GC Fuji II LC. GCP Glass Fill continued to decrease cell viability and adhesion. CSC-based materials and GC Fuji II LC allowed for HGF and hFOB proliferation; however, none of the tested materials specifically stimulated cell proliferation.

Conclusions

CSC characterized by low cytotoxicity. GC Fuji II LC shows moderate cytotoxic effects. ProRoot MTA, Harvard MTA, Biodentine, EndoSequence putty, and GC Fuji II LC allow HGF and HAO to adhere and HGF and hFOB to proliferate. GCP Glass Fill decreases cell viability, adhesion, and proliferation.

Clinical relevance

CSC remain the paramount biologic choice for the repair of extensive cervical root defects. GC Fuji II LC might be considered in addition to CSC when the defect comprises supracrestal areas and the restoration requires superior aesthetic and mechanical characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Patel S, Kanagasingam S, Pitt Ford TR (2009) External cervical resorption: a review. J Endod 35:616–625

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Torabinejad M, Parirokh M (2010) Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review—part II: leakage and biocompatibility investigations. J Endod 36:190–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Katsamakis S, Slot DE, Van der Sluis LW, Van der Weijden F (2013) Histological responses of the periodontium to MTA: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 40:334–344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Prati C, Gandolfi MG (2015) Calcium silicate bioactive cements: biological perspectives and clinical applications. Dent Mater 31:351–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Krupp C, Bargholz C, Brüsehaber M, Hülsmann M (2013) Treatment outcome after repair of root perforations with mineral trioxide aggregate: a retrospective evaluation of 90 teeth. J Endod 39:1364–1368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pontius V, Pontius O, Braun A, Frankenberger R, Roggendorf MJ (2013) Retrospective evaluation of perforation repairs in 6 private practices. J Endod 39:1346–1358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mente J, Leo M, Panagidis D, Saure D, Pfefferle T (2014) Treatment outcome of mineral trioxide aggregate: repair of root perforations-long-term results. J Endod 40:790–796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yilmaz HG, Kalender A, Cengiz E (2010) Use of mineral trioxide aggregate in the treatment of invasive cervical resorption: a case report. J Endod 36:160–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fernández R, Rincón JG (2011) Surgical endodontic management of an invasive cervical resorption class 4 with mineral trioxide aggregate: a 6-year follow-up. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 112:e18–e22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Parirokh M, Torabinejad M (2010) Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review—part III: clinical applications, drawbacks, and mechanism of action. J Endod 36:400–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Keskin C, Demiryurek EO (2015) Ozyurek T (2015) Color stabilities of calcium silicate-based materials in contact with different irrigation solutions. J Endod 41:409–411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim SY, Yang SE (2011) Surgical repair of external inflammatory root resorption with resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 111:e33–e36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B (2008) The biocompatibility of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements for dentistry. Dent Mater 24:1702–1718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. GCP Dental (2014) GCP Glass Fill: Tips & Tricks Glass Fill. Retrieved from http://www.gcp-dental.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Tips_and_Tricks_GCP_April_2014.pdf

  15. Diercke K, Sen S, Kohl A, Lux CJ, Erber R (2011) Compression-dependent up-regulation of ephrin-A2 in PDL fibroblasts attenuates osteogenesis. J Dent Res 90:1108–1115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zingler S, Erber R, Lux CJ, Seeberger R, Bister D, Ludwig B (2013) Biocompatibility of gold and stainless steel chains used for forced eruption of impacted teeth—an in vitro investigation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 116:159–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fuss Z, Trope M (1996) Root perforations: classification and treatment choices based on prognostic factors. Endod Dent Traumatol 12:255–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Martins TM, Bosco AF, Nóbrega FJ, Nagata MJ, Garcia VG, Fucini SE (2007) Periodontal tissue response to coverage of root cavities restored with resin materials: a histomorphometric study in dogs. J Periodontol 78:1075–1082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhou HM, Shen Y, Wang ZJ, Li L, Zheng YF, Häkkinen L, Haapasalo M (2013) In vitro cytotoxicity evaluation of a novel root repair material. J Endod 39:478–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Al-Rabeah E, Perinpanayagam H, MacFarland D (2006) Human alveolar bone cells interact with ProRoot and tooth-colored MTA. J Endod 32:872–875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schmalz G (1994) Use of cell cultures for toxicity testing of dental materials—advantages and limitations. J Dent 22:S6–S11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ahmed HM, Luddin N, Kannan TP, Mokhtar KI, Ahmad A (2014) Cell attachment properties of Portland cement-based endodontic materials: biological and methodological considerations. J Endod 40:1517–1523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Buttke TM, McCubrey JA, Owen TC (1993) Use of an aqueous soluble tetrazolium/formazan assay to measure viability and proliferation of lymphokine-dependent cell lines. J Immunol Methods 157:233–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Attik GN, Villat C, Hallay F, Pradelle-Plasse N, Bonnet H, Moreau K, Colon P, Grosgogeat B (2014) In vitro biocompatibility of a dentine substitute cement on human MG63 osteoblasts cells: Biodentine™ versus MTA®. Int Endod J 47:1133–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Camilleri J (2008) The biocompatibility of modified experimental Portland cements with potential for use in dentistry. Int Endod J 41:1107–1114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. De Deus G, Ximenes R, Gurgel-Filho ED, Plotkowski MC, Coutinho-Filho T (2005) Cytotoxicity of MTA and Portland cement on human ECV 304 endothelial cells. Int Endod J 38:604–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Camilleri J, Montesin FE, Di Silvio L, Pitt Ford TR (2005) The chemical constitution and biocompatibility of accelerated Portland cement for endodontic use. Int Endod J 38:834–842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Haglund R, He J, Jarvis J, Safavi KE, Spångberg LS, Zhu Q (2003) Effects of root-end filling materials on fibroblasts and macrophages in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 95:739–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ma J, Shen Y, Stojicic S, Haapasalo M (2011) Biocompatibility of two novel root repair materials. J Endod 37:793–798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. von Wilmowsky C, Vairaktaris E, Pohle D, Rechtenwald T, Lutz R, Munstedt H, Koller G, Schmidt M, Neukam FW, Schlegel KA, Nkenke E (2008) Effects of bioactive glass and beta-TCP containing three-dimensional laser sintered polyetheretherketone composites on osteoblasts in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res A 87:896–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Willershausen I, Wolf T, Kasaj A, Weyer V, Willershausen B, Marroquin BB (2013) Influence of a bioceramic root end material and mineral trioxide aggregates on fibroblasts and osteoblasts. Arch Oral Biol 58:1232–1237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Samara A, Sarri Y, Stravopodis D, Tzanetakis GN, Kontakiotis EG, Anastasiadou E (2011) A comparative study of the effects of three root-end filling materials on proliferation and adherence of human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. J Endod 37:865–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Montellano AM, Schwartz SA, Beeson TJ (2006) Contamination of tooth-colored mineral trioxide aggregate used as a root-end filling material: a bacterial leakage study. J Endod 32:452–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Safar JA, Davis RD, Overton JD (1999) Effect of saliva contamination on the bond of dentin to resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. Oper Dent 24:351–357

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Menne-Happ U, Ilie N (2013) Effect of gloss and heat on the mechanical behaviour of a glass carbomer cement. J Dent 41:223–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Geurtsen W, Spahl W, Leyhausen G (1998) Residual monomer/additive release and variability in cytotoxicity of light-curing glass-ionomer cements and compomers. J Dent Res 77:2012–2019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Makkawy HA, Koka S, Lavin MT, Ewoldsen NO (1998) Cytotoxicity of root perforation repair materials. J Endod 24:477–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Brackett MG, Bouillaguet S, Lockwood PE, Rotenberg S, Lewis JB, Messer RL, Wataha JC (2007) In vitro cytotoxicity of dental composites based on new and traditional polymerization chemistries. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 81:397–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Oliva A, Della Ragione F, Salerno A, Riccio V, Tartaro G, Cozzolino A, D’Amato S, Pontoni G, Zappia V (1996) Biocompatibility studies on glass ionomer cements by primary cultures of human osteoblasts. Biomaterials 17:1351–1356

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Huang FM, Tai KW, Chou MY, Chang YC (2002) Resinous perforation-repair materials inhibit the growth, attachment, and proliferation of human gingival fibroblasts. J Endod 28:291–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schweikl H, Müller R, Englert C, Hiller KA, Kujat R, Nerlich M, Schmalz G (2007) Proliferation of osteoblasts and fibroblasts on model surfaces of varying roughness and surface chemistry. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18:1895–1905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mrs Tanja Krüger and Mrs Edith Daum for their invaluable expertise and support concerning the laboratory experiments. The linguistic support of Mrs Joanna Voerste and Mr Adam Gaier in preparing the manuscript is highly appreciated. The authors further thank Mrs Kirsten Stoik for assistance in preparation of the figures. The authors also thank the manufacturers for supplying the materials.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic for Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Endodontics and Dental Traumatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Annemarie Michel, Holger Gehrig & Johannes Mente

  2. Clinic for Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Ralf Erber

  3. Clinic for Oral, Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Cornelia Frese

  4. Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, Ruprecht-Karls-University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

    Daniel Saure

Authors
  1. Annemarie Michel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ralf Erber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cornelia Frese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Holger Gehrig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Saure
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Johannes Mente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Mente.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All materials tested within this study project were provided by the manufacturers, but they did not fund this study. They had no influence on the study design, data collection and analysis, or on the decision to publish or in preparing the manuscript.

Funding

The study project was funded by the Department of Conservative Dentistry and the Department of Orthodontics of the Clinic for Oral, Dental, and Maxillofacial Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of the University of Heidelberg (Ref. 80/94 and S147/2010) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study before the collection of alveolar bone cells (HAO) and/or primary human fibroblasts from the gingiva (HGF).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michel, A., Erber, R., Frese, C. et al. In vitro evaluation of different dental materials used for the treatment of extensive cervical root defects using human periodontal cells. Clin Oral Invest 21, 753–761 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1830-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1830-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation