Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 429–433 | Cite as

In vitro toxicity of grey MTA in comparison to white MTA on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts

  • S. N. Al-Haj AliEmail author
  • S. H. Al-Jundi
  • D. J. Ditto
Original Scientific Article

Abstract

Aim

This was to define and compare the in vitro toxicity of grey MTA with that of white MTA on cultured human periodontal ligament (PDL) fibroblasts.

Methods

PDL cells were obtained from sound first permanent molars and cultured in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium. Cultures were subjected to different concentrations of grey and white MTA (0.5, 5, 50 and 500 µg/ml) for 24 h at 37 °C. Cells that were not exposed to grey or white MTA served as the negative control. In vitro toxicity was assessed using MTT assay.

Statistics

The results were compared using ANOVA and Tukey statistical tests (p < 0.05).

Results

White MTA presented higher in vitro toxicity than grey MTA. However, the differences were almost insignificant (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Both colours of MTA are biocompatible since they were both able to preserve PDL fibroblasts for up to 24 h. MTA is as a promising alternative in pulpotomy of primary teeth.

Keywords

Grey MTA White MTA Fibroblasts 

References

  1. Aienehchi M, Dadvand S, Fayazi S, Bayat-Movahed S. Randomised controlled trial of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol for pulpotomy in primary molar teeth. Int Endod J. 2007;40:261–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Hiyasat AS, Darmani H, Milhem MM. Cytotoxicity evaluation of dental resin composites and their flowable derivatives. Clin Oral Investig. 2005;9(1):21–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amaral M, Gomes PS, Lopes MA, et al. Cytotoxicity evaluation of nanocrystalline diamond coatings by fibroblast cell cultures. Acta Biomater. 2009;5(2):755–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Parirokh M, et al. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate’s composition with Portland cements and a new endodontic cement. J Endod. 2009;35(2):243–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bahrololoomi Z, Moeintaghavi A, Emtiazi M, Hosseini G. Clinical and radiographic comparison of primary molars after formocresol and electrosurgical pulpotomy: a randomised clinical trial. Indian J Dent Res. 2008;19(3):219–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caicedo R, Abbot PV, Alongi DJ, Alarcon MY. Clinical, radiographic and histologic analysis of the effects of mineral trioxide aggregate used in direct pulp capping and pulpotomies of primary teeth. Aust Dent J. 2006;51:297–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camilleri J. A review of the methods used to study biocompatibility of Portland cement-derived materials used in dentistry. MMJ. 2006;18(3):9–13.Google Scholar
  8. De Menezes JV, Takamori ER, Bijella MF, Granjeiro JM. In vitro toxicity of MTA compared with other primary teeth pulpotomy agents. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2009;33(3):217–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Eidelman E, Holan G, Fuks AB. Mineral trioxide aggregate vs. formocresol in pulpotomised primary molars: a preliminary report. Pediatr Dent. 2001;23(1):15–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fallahinejad Ghajari MM, Vatanpour M, Fard M. Comparison of pulpotomy with formocresol and MTA in primary molars: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J. 2008;3(3):45–9.Google Scholar
  11. Hanks CT, Wataha JC, Sun Z. In vitro models of biocompatibility: a review. Dent Mater. 1996;12(3):186–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Issa Y, Watts DC, Brunton PA, Waters CM, Duxbury AJ. Resin composite monomers alter MTT and LDH activity of human gingival fibroblasts in vitro. Dent Mater. 2004;20(1):12–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karimjee CK, Koka S, Rallis DM, Gound TG. Cellular toxicity of mineral trioxide aggregate mixed with an alternative delivery vehicle. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;102(4):115–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koulaouzidou EA, Economides N, Beltes P, Geromichalos G, Papazisis K. In vitro evaluation of the cytotoxicity of ProRoot MTA and MTA Angelus. J Oral Sci. 2008;50(4):397–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA. Dentistry for the child and adolescent, 9th ed. Mosby; 2011. pp. 343–63.Google Scholar
  16. Noorollahian H. Comparison of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol as pulp medicaments for pulpotomies in primary molars. Br Dent J. 2008;204(11):E20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peng L, Ye L, Tan H, Zhou X. Evaluation of the formocresol versus mineral trioxide aggregate primary molar pulpotomy: a meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;102(6):e40–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Perez AL, Spears R, Gutmann JL, Opperman LA. Osteoblasts and MG-63 osteosarcoma cells behave differently when in contact with ProRoot MTA and white MTA. Int Endod J. 2003;36(8):564–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Prabhu NT, Munshi AK. Clinical, radiographic and histological observations of the radicular pulp following “feracrylum” pulpotomy. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1997;21(2):151–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ranly DM. Pulpotomy therapy in primary teeth: new modalities for old rationales. Pediatr Dent. 1994;16(6):403–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ratanasathien S, Wataha JC, Hanks CT, Dennison JB. Cytotoxic interactive effects of dentin bonding components on mouse fibroblasts. J Dent Res. 1995;74(9):1602–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roberts HW, Toth JM, Berzins DW, Charlton DG. Mineral trioxide aggregate material use in endodontic treatment: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 2008;24(2):149–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saghiri ML, Daliri M, Aeinehchi M, Behnamghader A. A comparative study of ProRoot MTA and Angelus MTA (in vitro). SRM J Res Dent Sci. 2010;1:60–5.Google Scholar
  24. Sjogren G, Sletten G, Dahl JE. Cytotoxicity of dental alloys, metals, and ceramics assessed by Millipore filter, agar overlay, and MTT tests. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84(2):229–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Souza NJ, Justo GZ, Oliveira CR, Haun M, Bincoletto C. Cytotoxicity of materials used in perforation repair tested using the V79 fibroblast cell line and the granulocyte–macrophage progenitor cells. Int Endod J. 2006;39(1):40–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Takita T, Hayashi M, Takeichi O, et al. Effect of mineral trioxide aggregate on proliferation of cultured human dental pulp cells. Int Endod J. 2006;39(5):415–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tipton DA, Lyle B, Babich H, Dabbous M. In vitro cytotoxic and anti- inflammatory effects of myrrh oil on human gingival fibroblasts and epithelial cells. Toxicol In Vitro. 2003;17(3):301–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Torabinejad M, Chivian N. Clinical applications of mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod. 1999;25(3):197–205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Wyk CWO, Maritz JS. Cultured pulp fibroblasts: are they suitable for in vitro cytotoxicity testing? J Oral Pathol Med. 2001;30(3):168–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Witherspoon DE, Small JC, Harris GZ. Mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomies: a case series outcomes assessment. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(5):610–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. N. Al-Haj Ali
    • 1
    Email author
  • S. H. Al-Jundi
    • 2
  • D. J. Ditto
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Faculty of DentistryQassim UniversityQassimKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  2. 2.Preventive Dentistry DepartmentJordan University of Science and TechnologyIrbidJordan

Personalised recommendations