三种不同根管封闭剂的细胞毒性比较分析

Aliaa Elgendy, Cairo Egypt Arts, Mohammed Hassan
{"title":"三种不同根管封闭剂的细胞毒性比较分析","authors":"Aliaa Elgendy, Cairo Egypt Arts, Mohammed Hassan","doi":"10.31254/dentistry.2021.6203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study aims to evaluate Well-Root ST in comparison with CeraSeal and AH Plus regarding cytotoxicity using (MTT) assay on human epithelial type 2 (HEp-2) cells. Materials and Methods: Teflon mold was used to fabricate disc samples of each root canal sealer. Samples were divided into 3 groups: group (A) (Well-Root ST), group (B) (Ceraseal) and group (C) (AH Plus) in two evaluation periods (24h and 72h). All samples of root canal sealers were mixed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and the discs were allowed to set in a at 37°C for 24 hours before extraction. Extract collected at each time point was diluted to various concentrations of 12.5%, 25%, 50% and 100% with DMEM to create a total of four different concentrations of each extract. DMEM incubated for 24 hours served as the control. (HEp-2) cell line was seeded in 96 well micro-titer plates and cultures were then subjected to 100 μL of the (12.5%, 25%, 50% and 100%) extracts medium while cell cultures with supplemented DMEM were used as controls. The plates were left in the incubator for 24 or 72 h before the cytotoxicity evaluation was carried out by (MTT) assay. Viability percentage was calculated and cytotoxicity was evaluated by rating according to cell viability relative to control group, non-cytotoxic (more than 90%), slightly cytotoxic (from 60 to 90%), moderately cytotoxic (from 30 to 59%) and severely cytotoxic (less than 30%) cell viability. Statistics: Data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed using one way ANOVA test and Bonferroni's post-hoc test. Results: According to evaluation time, Well-Root ST showed the highest viability values in all concentration percentages at both intervals (24 and 72 hours) while AH plus showed the least viability values. According to concentration percentage, The viability increased with decreasing the concentration in all tested groups. Conclusion: The evaluated root canal sealers showed varying degrees of cytotoxicity. However, Well-Root ST was associated with significantly highest cell viability percentages. 1- AH plus significantly showed less cell viability in comparison to calcium silicate-based root canal sealers.","PeriodicalId":240291,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Dentistry Research","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparative Analysis of Cytotoxicity of Three Different Root Canal Sealers\",\"authors\":\"Aliaa Elgendy, Cairo Egypt Arts, Mohammed Hassan\",\"doi\":\"10.31254/dentistry.2021.6203\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: This study aims to evaluate Well-Root ST in comparison with CeraSeal and AH Plus regarding cytotoxicity using (MTT) assay on human epithelial type 2 (HEp-2) cells. Materials and Methods: Teflon mold was used to fabricate disc samples of each root canal sealer. Samples were divided into 3 groups: group (A) (Well-Root ST), group (B) (Ceraseal) and group (C) (AH Plus) in two evaluation periods (24h and 72h). All samples of root canal sealers were mixed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and the discs were allowed to set in a at 37°C for 24 hours before extraction. Extract collected at each time point was diluted to various concentrations of 12.5%, 25%, 50% and 100% with DMEM to create a total of four different concentrations of each extract. DMEM incubated for 24 hours served as the control. (HEp-2) cell line was seeded in 96 well micro-titer plates and cultures were then subjected to 100 μL of the (12.5%, 25%, 50% and 100%) extracts medium while cell cultures with supplemented DMEM were used as controls. The plates were left in the incubator for 24 or 72 h before the cytotoxicity evaluation was carried out by (MTT) assay. Viability percentage was calculated and cytotoxicity was evaluated by rating according to cell viability relative to control group, non-cytotoxic (more than 90%), slightly cytotoxic (from 60 to 90%), moderately cytotoxic (from 30 to 59%) and severely cytotoxic (less than 30%) cell viability. Statistics: Data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed using one way ANOVA test and Bonferroni's post-hoc test. Results: According to evaluation time, Well-Root ST showed the highest viability values in all concentration percentages at both intervals (24 and 72 hours) while AH plus showed the least viability values. According to concentration percentage, The viability increased with decreasing the concentration in all tested groups. Conclusion: The evaluated root canal sealers showed varying degrees of cytotoxicity. However, Well-Root ST was associated with significantly highest cell viability percentages. 1- AH plus significantly showed less cell viability in comparison to calcium silicate-based root canal sealers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":240291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Dentistry Research\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Dentistry Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31254/dentistry.2021.6203\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Dentistry Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31254/dentistry.2021.6203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在利用MTT法评价Well-Root ST与CeraSeal和AH Plus对人上皮2型(HEp-2)细胞的细胞毒性。材料与方法:采用聚四氟乙烯模具制作各根管封闭器的盘样。将样品分为3组:A组(Well-Root ST)、B组(Ceraseal)和C组(AH Plus),分别在24h和72h两个评价周期内进行。根据制造商的说明混合所有根管封闭剂样品,并在拔牙前将牙盘置于37°C下放置24小时。在每个时间点收集的提取物用DMEM稀释到不同浓度的12.5%,25%,50%和100%,使每种提取物共四种不同浓度。孵育24小时的DMEM作为对照。将HEp-2细胞株接种于96孔微滴板上,培养于100 μL(12.5%、25%、50%和100%)提取物培养基中,并以添加DMEM的细胞培养为对照。在培养箱中放置24或72 h,然后用(MTT)法评价细胞毒性。计算细胞活力百分比,并根据细胞活力相对于对照组、无细胞毒性(大于90%)、轻度细胞毒性(60 ~ 90%)、中度细胞毒性(30 ~ 59%)和严重细胞毒性(小于30%)细胞活力进行评分,评估细胞毒性。统计:收集数据,制作表格,采用单因素方差分析和Bonferroni事后检验进行统计分析。结果:根据评价时间,在24和72小时两个时间间隔内,各浓度百分比下Well-Root ST的活力最高,而AH +的活力最低。从浓度百分比来看,各试验组的存活率均随浓度的降低而升高。结论:所评价的根管封闭剂均表现出不同程度的细胞毒性。然而,Well-Root ST与最高的细胞存活率相关。与硅酸钙根管密封剂相比,1- AH +的细胞活力明显降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Comparative Analysis of Cytotoxicity of Three Different Root Canal Sealers
Aim: This study aims to evaluate Well-Root ST in comparison with CeraSeal and AH Plus regarding cytotoxicity using (MTT) assay on human epithelial type 2 (HEp-2) cells. Materials and Methods: Teflon mold was used to fabricate disc samples of each root canal sealer. Samples were divided into 3 groups: group (A) (Well-Root ST), group (B) (Ceraseal) and group (C) (AH Plus) in two evaluation periods (24h and 72h). All samples of root canal sealers were mixed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and the discs were allowed to set in a at 37°C for 24 hours before extraction. Extract collected at each time point was diluted to various concentrations of 12.5%, 25%, 50% and 100% with DMEM to create a total of four different concentrations of each extract. DMEM incubated for 24 hours served as the control. (HEp-2) cell line was seeded in 96 well micro-titer plates and cultures were then subjected to 100 μL of the (12.5%, 25%, 50% and 100%) extracts medium while cell cultures with supplemented DMEM were used as controls. The plates were left in the incubator for 24 or 72 h before the cytotoxicity evaluation was carried out by (MTT) assay. Viability percentage was calculated and cytotoxicity was evaluated by rating according to cell viability relative to control group, non-cytotoxic (more than 90%), slightly cytotoxic (from 60 to 90%), moderately cytotoxic (from 30 to 59%) and severely cytotoxic (less than 30%) cell viability. Statistics: Data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed using one way ANOVA test and Bonferroni's post-hoc test. Results: According to evaluation time, Well-Root ST showed the highest viability values in all concentration percentages at both intervals (24 and 72 hours) while AH plus showed the least viability values. According to concentration percentage, The viability increased with decreasing the concentration in all tested groups. Conclusion: The evaluated root canal sealers showed varying degrees of cytotoxicity. However, Well-Root ST was associated with significantly highest cell viability percentages. 1- AH plus significantly showed less cell viability in comparison to calcium silicate-based root canal sealers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Relationship between Tooth Loss and Quality of Life Based on OHIP-14 Named Cells and Bodies in Blood, Skin and Neural Diseases Along with Metabolic & Storage Disorders The Churro Fabricator Comparative study on the efficacy of gingival retraction using Retraction cord and Expasyl paste in implant patients In-vivo study Correlation between Knowledge and Attitude with The Practice of Using PPE among Professional Dental Students at Jember University Dental Hospital, Indonesia: A Cross-Sectional Study
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1