FARKLI KÖK KANAL PATLARININ SİTOTOKSİSİTE YÖNÜNDEN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 1, 66 - 73, 15.01.2019

Meşkule Şahin Berna Aslan Funda Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.522728

Öz

Amaç:
Kök kanal materyalleri periapical dokular üzerinde çeşitli derecelerde
sitotoksisite göstermektedir. Bu durum sonucunda sırasıyla; enflamasyon
oluşumu, yara iyileşmesinin gecikmesi ve kemik rezorbsiyonu oluşmaktadır. Kök
kanal dolgu materyalleri doğrudan canlı dokularla temas halinde oldukları için
biyolojik olarak periapikal dokularla uyumlu olmalıdır. Çalışmamızın amacı,
farklı içeriklere sahip kök kanal dolgu patlarının L-929 hücre süspansiyonudaki
sitotoksik etkilerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır.

Gereç ve
Yöntem: AH Plus, Tubli Seal EWT, EndoREZ, MTA Fillapex,
Real Seal’in üreticilerin talimatları doğrultusunda steril şartlarda karıştırılıp
hazırlandı. Hazırlanan örnekler 6 kuyucuklu plağın her bir kuyucuğunda farklı
kök kanal dolgu patı olacak şekilde yerleştirildi. Örnekler üzerine DMEM ilave
edilerek, 24, 48 ve 72 saat bekletildi. Elde edilen ekstraksiyon sıvıları,
L-929 hücre süspansiyonu içeren 96 kuyucuklu plakların her bir gözüne 100 µl
yerleştirildi. 48 saatlik inkübasyondan sonra plaklardan ekstraksiyon sıvıları
uzaklaştırılmış ve her bir göze 25 µl MTT solüsyonu ilave edilerek 4 saat süre
ile bekletilmiştir. Bu sürenin sonunda spektrofotometrede 570 nm’de
absorbansları ölçülmüştür.

Bulgular:
24, 48 ve 72 saatlik değerlendirmede AH Plus ve kontrol grubu arasında
istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark gözlenmezken (p>0,05), diğer kök kanal
dolgu patları ve kontrol grubu arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark
vardır (p<0,05). Kontrol grubuna ait hücre canlılık oranları Tubli Seal EWT,
EndoREZ, MTA Fillapex ve  Real Seal kök
kanal dolgu patlarının hücre canlılık oranlarından anlamlı derecede daha yüksektir.

Sonuç:
AH Plus 3 zaman diliminde de sitotoksisite göstermezken, Tubli Seal EWT,
EndoREZ, MTA Fillapex ve Real  Seal 24. ve 48. saatlerde orta, 72.
saatte ise hafif sitotoksisite göstermişlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Kök kanal dolgu patları, MTT testi, sitotoksisitet

COMPARISION OF CYTOTOXICITY OF DIFFERENT ROOT CANAL
SEALERS

ABSTRACT

Aim: Root canal sealers
exhibit varying degrees of cytotoxicity to periapical tissues. This in turn
results in inflammation, delayed wound healing, and even bone resorption. Root canal sealers were contact with periapical tissues
and must be biocompatable. The aim of this study was to compare the cytotoxic
effect of different root canal sealers in different contents on L-929 cell
suspension.

Materyal
and Methods: AH Plus, Tubli Seal EWT, EndoREZ, MTA Fillapex and
Real Seal were mixed under sterilized condition according to manufacturer’s
instructions. Mixed sealers were placed in six-well plate and every sealers
placed at the bottom of each well to cover an area of 1 cm diameter. Placed
DMEM on samples for 24, 48 and 72 hours. 100 µl of eluate was transferred to a
96- well plate containing L-929 cell suspension. After 48 hours incubation the
extracts were removed from the wells, 25 µl MTT solution was added to each well
and waited for 4 hours. Subsequently, the spectrophotometric absorbance was
measured at 570 nm using a spectrophotometer.

Results:
According to the MTT assay, in the rates of cell viability there was no
statistically significant difference between AH Plus and control group at 24,
48 and 72-hour evaluation (p>0.05), but there was statistically significant
difference between the other sealers and control group (p<0.05). The control
group had significantly high rates of cell viability than Tubli Seal EWT,
EndoREZ, MTA Fillapex and Real Seal.

Conclusion:
For each 24, 48 and 72 hours AH Plus was non-cytotoxic, Tubli Seal EWT,
EndoREZ, MTA Fillapex and Real Seal had moderate cytotoxicity at 24 and 48 hour
evaluation and slightly cytotoxicity at 72 hour evaluation.

Key Words:
Cytotoxicity, MTT assay, root canal sealers

 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kök kanal dolgu patları, MTT testi

Kaynakça

• 1. Himel VT, Mcspadden JT, Goodis HE. Instruments, materials, and devices. In: Pathways of the Pulp. “9nd Ed.” Cohen, S., Hargreaves, K.M., St. Louis: Mosby 2006: p.233-290.
• 2. Schmalz G, Arenholt-Bindslev D. Root canal filling materials. In: Textbook of Endodontology “2th ed.” Ed. Bergenholtz, G., Hørsted-Bindslev, P., Reit, C., West Sussex. John Wiley & Sons. 2010: p.193-218.
• 3. Kaur A., Shah N., Logani A., Mishra N. Biotoxicity of commonly used root canal sealers: a meta-analysis. J Conserv Dent 2015;18:83-8.
• 4. Markowitz K, Moynihan M, Liu M, Kim S. Biologic properties of eugenol and zinc oxide-eugenol. A clinically oriented review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path 1992;73:729-37.
• 5. Ashraf H, Najafi F, Heidari S, Mohammadian M, Zadsirjan S physical properties and chemical characterization of two experimental epoxy resin root canalsealers. Iran Endod J. 2017;12:149-56
• 6. Jafari F, Aghazadeh M, Jafari S, Khaki F, Kabiri F In vitro Cytotoxicity Comparison of MTA Fillapex, AH-26 and Apatite Root Canal Sealer at Different Setting Times.Iran Endod J 2017;12:162-7.
• 7. Desai S., Chandler N. Calcium hydroxide-based root canal sealers: a review. J Endod 2009;35:475-80.
• 8. Kim Y K, Grandini S, Ames J. M, et al. Critical review on methacrylate resin–based root canal sealers. J Endod 2010;36:383-99.
• 9. Johnson WT, Gutmann JL. Obturation of the cleaned and shaped root canal system. In: Pathways of the pulp. “9nd Ed.” Cohen S, Hargreaves K M. St. Louis: Mosby, 2006: p.368-369.
• 10. Willershausen I, Callaway A, Briseno B, Willershausen B. In vitro analysis of the cytotocity and the antimicrobial effect of four endodontic sealers. Head Face Med 2011;15:1-9.
• 11. Vouzara T, Dimosiari G, Koulaouzidou EA, Economides N. Cytotoxicity of a new calcium silicate endodontic sealer. J Endod 2018;44:849-52.
• 12. Baraba A, Pezelj-Ribaric S, Roguljic M, et al. Cytotoxicity of two bioactive root canal sealers. Acta Stomatol Croat 2016;50:8–13.
• 13. Mosmann T. Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods 1983;65:55-63.
• 14. Economides N, Vassilie PKK, Poulupoulos A, Kolokuris I, Rozos G, Shore R. Experimental study of the biocompatibility of four root canal sealers and their influence on the zinc and calcium content of several tissues. J Endod 1995;21:122-5.
• 15. Schwarze T, Fiedler I, Leyhausen G, Geurtsen W. The cellular compatibility of five endodontic sealers during the setting period. J Endod 2002;28:784-6.
• 16. Lin PC, Chen WMW, Tai TF, Lee MY, Lin BR, Jeng JH. Effects of root-end filling materials and eugenol on mitokondrial dehydrogenase activity and cytotoxicity to human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. Biomed Mater Res Part B: Apply Biometer 2004;71:429-40.
• 17. Rappaport, HM, Lilliy GE, Kapsimalis P. Toxicity of endodontic filling materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1964;18:785-02.
• 18. Cartwright, T., Shah, P. (1998). Culture media In: Basic cell culture: Ed. Davis JM, New York: Oxford Univercity Press, Pp.57-91.
• 19. Hensten-Pettersen A, Helgeland K. Evaluation of biologic effects of dental materials using different cell culture technique. Scand J Dent Res 1977;85:291-6.
• 20. Arun S, Sampath V, Mahalaxmi S, Rajkumar K. A comparative evaluation of the effect of the addition of pachymic acid on the cytotoxicity of 4 different root canal sealers-an ın vitro study. J Endod 2017;43:96-9.
• 21. Javidi M, Zarei M, Omidi S, Ghorbani A, Gharechahi M, Shayani Rad M4. Cytotoxicity of a New Nano Zinc-Oxide Eugenol Sealer on Murine Fibroblasts. Iran Endod J 2015;10:231-5.
• 22. Silva EJ, Neves AA, De Deus G, Accorsi-Mendonça T, Moraes AP, Valentim RM, Moreira EJ. Cytotoxicity and gelatinolytic activity of a new silicon-based endodontic sealer. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 2015;13:376-80.
• 23. Eldeniz AU, Shehata M, Högg C, Reichl FX. DNA double-strand breaks caused by new and contemporary endodontic sealers. Int Endod J 2016;49:1141-51.
• 24. Poggio C, Riva P, Chiesa M, Colombo M, Pietrocola G Comparative cytotoxicity evaluation of eight root canal sealers. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9:574-8.
• 25. Taira M, Nakao H, Matsumoto T, Takahashi J. Cytotoxic effect of methyl methacrylate on 4 cultured fibroblasts. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:311-5.
• 26. Azar NG, Heidari M, Bahrami ZS, et al. In vitro cytotoxicity of a new epoxy resin root canal sealer. J Endod 2000;26:462–5.
• 27. Al-Hiyasat AS, Tayyar M, Darmani H. Cytotoxicity evaluation of various resin based root canal sealers. Int Endod J 2010;43:148–53.
• 28. Prϋllage RK, Urban K, Sch€afer E, et al. Material properties of a tricalcium silicate- containing, a mineral trioxide aggregate-containing and an epoxy resin-based root canal sealer. J Endod 2016;42:1784–8.
• 29. Brackette MG, Lewis JB, Kious AR, Messer RLW, Lockwood PE, Brackette WW, Wataha JC. Cytotoxicity of endodontic sealers after one year of aging in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2012;100:1729-35
• 30. Karapinar-Kazandag M, Bayrak OF, Yalvac ME, Ersev H, Tanalp J, Sahin F, Bayirli G. Cytotoxicity of 5 endodontic sealers on L929 cell line and human dental pulp cells. Int Endod J 2011;44:626-34.
• 31. Leyhausen G, Heil J, Reifferscheid G, Waldmann P, Geursen W. Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of the epoxy resin-based root canal sealer AH Plus. J Endod 1999;25:109-13.
• 32. Eldeniz, A.U., Mustafa, K., Qrstavik, D., Dahl, J.E. Cytotoxicity of new resin-calcium hydroxide ,and silicone-based root canal sealers on fibroblasts derived from human gingiva and L929 cell lines. Int Endod J 2007;40:329-37.
• 33. Keleş A, Köseoğlu M, Çolak Topçu M, Bayrak ÖF. Farklı içerikli kök kanal patlarının sitotoksisitelerinin in vitro olarak incelenmesi. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2009;19:90-7.
• 34.Scelza MZ, Linhares AB, Silva LE, Granjeiro JM, Alves GG. A multiparametric assay to compare the cytotoxicity of endodontic sealers with primary human osteoblasts. Int Endod J 2012;45:12-