Top

BMC Oral Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Research

Biocompatibility of three different root canal sealers, experimental study

Authors: Ahmad Alfahlawy, Manar A. A. Selim, Hayam Y. Hassan

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Objectives

This study was assessed the biocompatibility of three different root canal sealers (Well-Root St, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and AH-Plus) following implantation in rat subcutaneous tissues, using histopathological immunohistochemical analysis.

Methods

Four groups of eighty-four male rats each underwent subcutaneous dorsal implantation of a polyethylene tube, either empty or filled. Tissues were collected, fixed, and processed for histological analysis after 7, 15, and 30 d. Slides were photographed and digitally processed to identify lymphocytes and macrophages using Cluster of differentiation 3 (CD3) and cluster of differentiation 68 (CD68) markers, respectively. P was set at 0.05, when lymphocyte and macrophage infiltration was compared between groups and observation times using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results

Histopathological analysis of all groups revealed an inflammatory reaction followed by the emergence of a fibrous capsule after 7 days. After 30 days, the thickness of the fibrous capsule and the inflammatory response subsided. CD3 staining for immunohistochemical analysis revealed that the AH-Plus group had the highest mean percentage of lymphocyte infiltration at 7 and 15 days, followed by the Well-Root St, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and Control groups. After 30 days, no discernible difference was observed between the groups in terms of the mean percentage of lymphocyte infiltration. After 7, 15, and 30 days, there was a significant difference in the mean percentage of macrophage infiltration across the groups, as demonstrated by CD68 staining. After 7, 15, and 30 days, the AH-Plus group had the highest mean percentage of macrophage infiltration, followed by the Well-Root St. and GuttaFlow Bioseal groups, while the control group had the lowest mean percentage.

Conclusion

All observational periods showed minimal inflammatory reactions to GuttaFlow Bioseal. After subcutaneous tissue implantation in a rat model, the initial inflammatory reactions to Well-Root St and AH-Plus had abated by day 30, and all tested sealers had outstanding biocompatibility.

Abdellatif D, Amato A, Calapaj M, Pisano M, Iandolo A. A novel modified obturation technique using biosealers: An ex vivo study. J Conserv Dent. 2021;24(4):369–73. https://doi.org/10.4103/2Fjcd.jcd_142_21.CrossRefPubMed

Sousa CJ, Montes CR, Pascon EA, Loyola AM, Versiani MA. Comparison of the intraosseous biocompatibility of AH-Plus, EndoREZ, and Epiphany root canal sealers. J Endod. 2006;32(7):656–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2005.12.003.CrossRefPubMed

Iandolo A, Ametrano G, Amato M, Rengo S, Simeone M. IG-file: A novel tool to improve root canal cleaning and measurement of the apical foramen. G Ital Endod. 2011;25:72–81.CrossRef

Cleghorn BM, Christie WH, Dong CC. Root and root canal morphology of the human permanent maxillary first molar: a literature review. J Endod. 2006;32(9):813–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.04.014.CrossRefPubMed

Geurtsen W. Biocompatibility of root canal filling materials. Aust Endod J. 2001;27(1):12–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2001.tb00445.x.CrossRefPubMed

Braga JM, Oliveira RR, de Castro MR, Vieira LQ, Sobrinho AP. Assessment of the cytotoxicity of a mineral trioxide aggregate-based sealer with respect to macrophage activity. Dent Traumatol. 2015;31(5):390–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/edt.12190.CrossRefPubMed

Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practitioners. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86(2):203–9. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.117056.CrossRefPubMed

Assiry AA, Karobari MI, Lin GSS, Batul R, Snigdha NT, Luke AM, Shetty KP, Scardina GA, Noorani TY. Microstructural and elemental characterization of root canal sealers using FTIR, SEM, and EDS analysis. Appl Sci. 2023;13:4517. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13074517.CrossRef

Sanz JL, López-García S, Rodríguez-Lozano FJ, Melo M, Lozano A, Llena C, Forner L. Cytocompatibility and bioactive potential of AH-Plus Bioceramic Sealer: An in vitro study. Int Endod J. 2022;55(10):1066–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13805.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Zhang W, Li Z, Peng B. Ex vivo cytotoxicity of a new calcium silicate-based canal filling material. Int Endod J. 2010;43(9):769–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01733.x.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Vallittu PK, Boccaccini AR, Hupa L, Watts DC. Bioactive dental materials-Do they exist and what does bioactivity mean? Dent Mater. 2018;34(5):693–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.001.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Sanz JL, López-García S, Lozano A, Pecci-Lloret MP, Llena C, Guerrero-Gironés J, Rodríguez-Lozano FJ, Forner L. Microstructural composition, ion release, and bioactive potential of new premixed calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers indicated for warm vertical compaction technique. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(3):1451–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03453-8.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Lee SH, Oh S, Al-Ghamdi AS, Mandorah AO, Kum KY, Chang SW. Sealing ability of AH Plus and GuttaFlow Bioseal. Bioinorg Chem Appl. 2020;2020:8892561. https://doi.org/10.1155/2F2020/2F8892561.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Olsson B, Sliwkowski A, Langeland K. Subcutaneous implantation for the biological evaluation of endodontic materials. J Endod. 1981;7(8):355–67.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Orstavic KD, Mijör IA. Histopatoloy and X-ray microanalysis of the subcutaneous tissue response to endodontic sealers. J Endod. 1988;14:13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0099-2399(81)80057-x.CrossRef

16.

Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7):e3000410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

de Oliveira Mendes ST, Ribeiro Sobrinho AP, de Carvalho AT, de Souza Côrtes MI, Vieira LQ. In vitro evaluation of the cytotoxicity of two root canal sealers on macrophage activity. J Endod. 2003;29(2):95–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200302000-00002.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kettering JD, Torabinejad M. Cytotoxicity of root canal sealers: A study using HeLa cells and fibroblasts. Int Endod J. 1984;17:60–1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1984.tb00382.x.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Brandtzaeg P. The increasing power of immunohistochemistry and immunocytochemistry. J Immunol Methods. 1998;216(1–2):49–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1759(98)00070-2.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kaspar HG, Crum CP. The utility of immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of gynecologic disorders. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139(1):39–54. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2014-0057-ra.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Viola NV, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, da Silva GF, Sasso-Cerri E, Tanomaru-Filho M, Cerri PS. Biocompatibility of an experimental MTA sealer implanted in the rat subcutaneous: quantitative and immunohistochemical evaluation. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2012;100(7):1773–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.32744.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Randomization in clinical trials in orthodontics: Its significance in research design and methods to achieve it. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(6):684–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq141.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Simsek N, Akinci L, Gecor O, Alan H, Ahmetoglu F, Taslidere E. Biocompatibility of a new epoxy resin-based root canal sealer in subcutaneous tissue of rat. Eur J Dent. 2015;9(1):31–5. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.149635.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Silveira CM, Pinto SC, Zedebski Rde A, Santos FA, Pilatti GL. Biocompatibility of four root canal sealers: a histopathological evaluation in rat subcutaneous connective tissue. Braz Dent J. 2011;22(1):21–7. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-64402011000100003.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Taha NA, Safadi RA, Alwedaie MS. Biocompatibility Evaluation of EndoSequence Root Repair Paste in the Connective Tissue of Rats. J Endod. 2016;42(10):1523–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.07.017.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Bósio CC, Felippe GS, Bortoluzzi EA, Felippe MC, Felippe WT, Rivero ER. Subcutaneous connective tissue reactions to iRoot SP, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Fillapex, DiaRoot BioAggregate and MTA. Int Endod J. 2014;47(7):667–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12203.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Silva LAB, Azevedo LU, Consolaro A, Barnett F, Xu Y, Battaglino RA, Cañadas PS, de Oliveira KMH, Silva RAB. Novel endodontic sealers induce cell cytotoxicity and apoptosis in a dose-dependent behavior and favorable response in mice subcutaneous tissue. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(9):2851–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2087-1.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Derakhshan S, Adl A, Parirokh M, Mashadiabbas F, Haghdoost AA. Comparing subcutaneous tissue responses to freshly mixed and set root canal sealers. Iran Endod J. 2009;4(4):152–7 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3766624/).PubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Titford M. The long history of hematoxylin. Biotech Histochem. 2005;80(2):73–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10520290500138372.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Lillie RD, Pizzolato P, Donaldson PT. Nuclear stains with soluble metachrome metal mordant dye lakes. The effect of chemical endgroup blocking reactions and the artificial introduction of acid groups into tissues. Histochemistry. 1976;49(1):23–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00490123.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Schulte EK. Standardization of biological dyes and stains: pitfalls and possibilities. Histochemistry. 1991;95(4):319–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00266958.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Zhang K, Deng H, Cagle PT. Utility of immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of pleuropulmonary and mediastinal cancers: a review and update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:1611–28. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2014-0092-ra.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Haines DM, West KH. Immunohistochemistry: forging the links between immunology and pathology. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2005;108(1–2):151–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2005.08.007.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Imperatore R, Cristino L. Assessing CB₁ expression in the brain by immunohistochemical methods: light, confocal, and electron microscopy. Methods Mol Biol. 2023;2576:407–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2728-0_34.CrossRefPubMed

35.

de Oliveira RL, Oliveira Filho RS, Gomes Hde C, de Franco MF, Enokihara MM, Duarte MA. Influence of calcium hydroxide addition to AH-Plus sealer on its biocompatibility. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;109(1):e50–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.08.026.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Bouillaguet S, Wataha JC, Tay FR, Brackett MG, Lockwood PE. Initial in vitro biological response to contemporary endodontic sealers. J Endod. 2006;32(10):989–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.05.006.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Scarparo RK, Haddad D, Acasigua GA, Fossati AC, Fachin EV, Grecca FS. Mineral trioxide aggregate-based sealer: analysis of tissue reactions to a new endodontic material. J Endod. 2010;36(7):1174–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.02.031.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Miletić I, Devcić N, Anić I, Borcić J, Karlović Z, Osmak M. The cytotoxicity of RoekoSeal and AH-Plus compared during different setting periods. J Endod. 2005;31(4):307–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000140570.95688.ee.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Mandal P, Zhao J, Sah SK, Huang Y, Liu J. In vitro cytotoxicity of guttaflow 2 on human gingival fibroblasts. J Endod. 2014;40(8):1156–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.01.025.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Grecca FS, Kopper PM, Santos RB, Fossati AC, Carrard VC, Acasigua GA, et al. Biocompatibility of RealSeal, its primer and AH-Plus implanted in subcutaneous connective tissue of rats. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011;19(1):52–6. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572011000100011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Collado-González M, Tomás-Catalá CJ, Oñate-Sánchez RE, Moraleda JM, Rodríguez-Lozano FJ. Cytotoxicity of GuttaFlow Bioseal, GuttaFlow2, MTA Fillapex, and AH-Plus on Human Periodontal Ligament Stem Cells. J Endod. 2017;43(5):816–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2017.01.001.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Santos JM, Pereira S, Sequeira DB, Messias AL, Martins JB, Cunha H, et al. Biocompatibility of a bioceramic silicone-based sealer in subcutaneous tissue. J Oral Sci. 2019;61(1):171–7. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.18-0145.

43.

Gomes-Filho JE, Gomes BP, Zaia AA, Ferraz CR, Souza-Filho FJ. Evaluation of the biocompatibility of root canal sealers using subcutaneous implants. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007;15(3):186–94. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572007000300007.

Title: Biocompatibility of three different root canal sealers, experimental study
Authors: Ahmad Alfahlawy
Manar A. A. Selim
Hayam Y. Hassan
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03473-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Biocompatibility of three different root canal sealers, experimental study

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

The efficacy of concentrated growth factor and platelet-rich fibrin as scaffolds in regenerative endodontic treatment applied to immature permanent teeth: a retrospective study

Promotion of the resistance of human oral epithelial cells to herpes simplex virus type I infection via N6-methyladenosine modification

Retention of zirconia crowns to titanium bases with straight versus angled screw access channels: an invitro study

The reliability of using light therapy compared with LASER in pain reduction of temporomandibular disorders: a randomized controlled trial

Clinical evaluation of marginal fit of uncemented CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia three-unit restorations in anterior areas, using scannable and conventional polyvinyl siloxane impression materials

Evaluation of implants in smoking and non-smoking patients with peri-implant disease risk analysis and esthetic scores: an observational study