Biocompatibility and biomineralization assessment of mineral trioxide aggregate flow
- 197 Downloads
Evaluate, in vivo, the biocompatibility via subcutaneous inflammatory tissue response and mineralization ability of the new MTA Flow compared to MTA Angelus and ProRoot MTA.
Materials and methods
Forty male Wistar rats were assigned and received subcutaneous polyethylene tube implants containing the test materials and a control group with empty tube (n = 10 animals/group). After days 7, 15, 30, and 60, the animals were euthanized and the polyethylene tubes were removed with the surrounding tissues. Inflammatory infiltrate and thickness of the fibrous capsule were histologically evaluated. Mineralization was analyzed by Von Kossa staining and under polarized light. Data were analyzed via Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s test with a significance level of 5%.
MTA Angelus induced the mildest reaction after 7 (P > .05) and 15 days (P < .05) followed by MTA Flow, both cements achieving mild inflammatory reaction after 15 days. ProRoot MTA induced a severe inflammation on day 7 and was reducing after day 15 (P > .05). No difference was observed after days 30 or 60 (P > .05). Von Kossa staining and birefringent structures were positive to all materials.
At the end of the experiment, the novel MTA Flow showed biocompatibility and induced biomineralization in all time periods.
The final consistence obtained in MTA Flow may facilitate several procedures, indicating that the MTA Flow has a promising application in endodontics.
KeywordsBiocompatibility Biomineralization Inflammation Mineral trioxide aggregate
The authors would like to thank Ultradent Products, Inc. for providing the MTA Flow used in this study.
This research was supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazil.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Before any procedure, the project was approved by Faculdade de Odontologia de Araçatuba, UNESP, Animal Ethical Committee (CEUA protocol 00225-2017).
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 6.ISO 10993-6. Biological evaluation of medical devices. Part 6: Tests for local effects after implantation International Standard Norm, Porto, Portugal (2007)Google Scholar
- 10.Federation Dentaire Internationale (1980) Recommended standard practices for the biological evaluation of dental materials. Int Dent J 30:174–176Google Scholar
- 16.Zarrabi MH, Javidi M, Jafarian AH, Joushan B (2010) Histologic assessment of human pulp response to capping with mineral trioxide aggregate and a novel endodontic cement. J Endod 11:1778–81. 12Google Scholar
- 21.Endo-Eze MTA FLOW Gel Safety Data Sheet (2017). Avaliable at: www.ultradent.com/en-us/Dental-Products-Supplies/Endodontics/MTA-repair-cement/endo-eze-MTAflow-mineral-trioxide-aggregate-repair-cement. Acessed in: February/2018
- 22.Ultradent Products, Inc. Products and Procedures Manual (2017) Repair Material: MTA Flow p. 54–57Google Scholar
- 23.Valentim D, Bueno CRE, Marques VAS, Vasques AMV, Cury MTS, Cintra LTA, Dezan-Junior E (2017) Calcium hydroxide associated with a new vehicle: Psidium cattleianum leaf extracts. Tissue response evaluation. Braz Oral Res 31(43):1-8Google Scholar
- 25.American Association of Endodontists (2013) New materials/technologies position paper. American Association of Endodontists, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 26.Chhabra A, Teja TS, Jindal V, Singla MG, Warring K (2011) Fate of extruded sealer: a matter of concern. J Oral Health Comm Dent 5(3):168–172Google Scholar
- 27.International Organization for Standardization. Dentistry—preclinical evaluation of biocompatibility of medical devices used in dentistry. Test methods for dental materials: ISO/TR 7405-1997(E). Switzerland: ISO, 1997Google Scholar