Skip to main content
Download PDF

Analysis of the cytotoxicity and bioactivity of CeraSeal, BioRoot™ and AH Plus® sealers in pre-osteoblast lineage cells

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 262 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The objective of the present study was to evaluate in vitro the cytotoxicity and bioactivity of various endodontic sealers (CeraSeal, BioRoot™ and AH Plus®) in pre-osteoblast mouse cells (MC3T3 cells).

Methods

MC3T3 cells (ATCC CRL-2594) were plated in 1 × 104 cells/well in 96-well plates in contact with endodontic sealers at concentrations of 1:10 and 1:100. Cell viability was evaluated by MTT assay after 24 and 48 h. In addition, sealer bioactivity was measured by RT-PCR for mediator of inflammation (Tnf, Ptgs2) and mineralization (Runx2, Msx1, Ssp1 and Dmp1) after 24 h and by Alizarin Red S Assay of mineralization after 28 days. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey’s post-test at a significance level of 5%.

Results

BioRoot™ presented 24-hour cytotoxicity (p < 0.05) at 1:10 concentration. In the period of 48 h, no endodontic cement was cytotoxic to the cells compared to the control (p > 0.05). TNF-α gene expression was induced by AH Plus® (p < 0.05), while Ptgs2 was induced by the CeraSeal and BioRoot™ (p < 0.05). The expression of Runx2 was stimulated by BioRoot™ and AH Plus® (p < 0.05). In contrast, the expression of Dmp-1 Dmp1 was higher for the CeraSeal and BioRoot™ (p < 0.05). Nonetheless, the sealers did not impact the formation of mineralization nodules (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

CeraSeal, BioRoot™ and AH Plus® sealers were not cytotoxic to MC3T3 cells within 48 h, but differentially induced the expression of genes related to inflammation and mineralization without impacting biomineralization by the cells.

Peer Review reports

Background

Dental pulp contains important structures for maintaining the vitality of the tooth, such as blood vessels, cells, collagen fibers and nerves [1,2,3,4,5,6]. When this tissue loses its defense capacity after injuries (chemical, physical, mechanical, thermal or microbial), pulp necrosis occurs and a possible therapy for that is non-surgical root canal treatment [6]. Non-surgical root canal treatment involves the removal of necrotic tissue, cleaning and decontaminating of the root canal and placement of a compatible material with human tissues that seals and promotes repair, which is usually the gutta percha cone with an endodontic filling sealer [6, 7]. Endodontic sealers are materials that fill the space between the dentin walls and gutta-percha points along the entire root canal [8]. Their properties should include dimensional stability, biological sealing and biocompatibility with the adjacent tissues [9]. Sealers are classified according to their chemical constituents in zinc oxide and, eugenol, calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, silicone, resin and bioceramic-based sealers [8].

These varieties of chemical constituents can alter the biological and physicochemical characteristics of filling cements, in addition to their bioactivity [9]. Filling cements, when bioactive, interact with cells in the apical and periapical region by direct contact or by diffusion to the tissues. Currently, one of the greatest challenges in endodontics is finding materials that promote the formation of mineralized tissue, i.e. that are bioactive [10,11,12].

AH Plus® is an endodontic sealer based on epoxy resin, considered the gold standard for comparison with other filling sealers since it has excellent physical-chemical properties, strength and dimensional stability [13]. It is currently one of the most studied materials both in in vitro and in vivo [14,15,16]. However, its bioactivity within tissues is still limited [17, 18]. With this issue in mind, bioceramic sealers were developed to improve the response of the apical and periapical tissue [18]. This compound may contain alumina, zirconia, bioactive glass, glass-ceramics, hydroxyapatite and calcium phosphates and are grouped in cements based on calcium silicate or calcium phosphate [8].

BioRoot™ is a bioceramic material developed as a calcium silicate-based root canal sealer with high solubility and without cytotoxic effects in vitro and mild antibacterial activity [19]. It can be used in the single-cone obturation technique or by lateral condensation [20]. BioRoot™ induces the synthesis of angiogenic and osteogenic growth factors by periodontal ligament cells, has the ability to stimulate mineralized tissue formation and presents antimicrobial action, but demonstrated significantly more solubility than other sealers [21,22,23,24,25].

CeraSeal (Meta Biomed Co., Cheongju, Korea), is a pre-mixed calcium silicate-based bioceramic material. Because it was more recently released, knowledge in the literature about this material is scarce in both in vitro and in vivo studies [12, 26]. Calcium silicate-based cements favor the biomineralization process [27]. Studies show that bioceramic materials are more biocompatible and have a greater capacity to induce osteoblast differentiation compared to AH Plus [8, 18].

It is extremely important to evaluate the cytotoxicity, bioactivity and reparative and/or regenerative potential of an endodontic filling material. Although the cytotoxicity of calcium silicate-based materials has been studied in periodontal ligament cells [12], knowledge of the CeraSeal material is limited in the literature regarding the inflammatory and mineralizing process in osteoblastic cells. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate in vitro the cytotoxicity and bioactivity of CeraSeal, BioRoot™ and AH Plus® endodontic sealers in pre-osteoblast mouse cells.

Methods

Sample preparation

The present study was carried out in accordance with ISO 10993-5: 2009 [28]. The extraction method was used to place the materials Cera Seal (calcium silicate; CSL 1,908,061), BioRoot™ RCS (tricalcium silicate; B23378-181011) and AH Plus® (Epoxy Resin; 291,293 J) materials in contact with cells tested. As previously described [29], prefabricated matrices with 2 mm in diameter and 3 mm in height were used. The detailed composition of the materials is described in Table 1. The manipulation of the materials was carried out according to the manufacturer’s instructions on a sterile glass slab in a laminar flow cabinet and introduced into the sterile matrices using sterile instruments for a volume of 37.68 mm3.

Table 1 Description of the materials used (Name, composition and manufacturer)
Full size table

The prepared materials were kept in the laminar flow cabinet under ultraviolet light (UV) for 1 h to eliminate contamination and then placed separately in sterile plastic tubes. Next, they were placed in polypropylene tubes with 2 ml of Alpha Modified Minimal Essential Medium (α MEM- Gibco, Invitrogen, Grand Island, NY, USA) and stored at 37 °C for 24 h before the experiment. The extract was filtered using a 0.22 μm Millipore filter, the remaining materials were discarded, and 1:10 and 1:100 serial dilutions were prepared from the initial extracts (1:1) [29]. The 1:1, 1:10, and 1:100 solutions were kept in refrigerated storage until use.

Cell culture

Mouse pre-osteoblast cell line (MC3T3 – ATCC CRL-2594 – Banco de Células do Rio de Janeiro - BCRJ) were maintained in α-MEM, supplemented with 5% fetal bovine serum (FBS) (Fetal Bovine Serum, Certified, Heat-Inactivated, Gibco, Invitrogen), penicillin and 1% streptomycin (Penicillin-Streptomycin, Gibco, Invitrogen). The cells were kept in a humidified incubator at 37 °C with 5% CO2. The medium was changed every 2 days. Cells were used between the 5th and 10th passage.

For the experiments, 1 × 104 cells/well were plated into 96-well cell culture plates (Cell Wells; Corning Glass Workers, NY, USA), and the cells were left to attach overnight in an incubator. The experiment was carried out in triplicate.

Cell viability - MTT colorimetric assay

Cell viability was evaluated using a MTT assay according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The cells were stimulated for 24 and 48 h according to the division of the groups (CeraSeal 1:10/CeraSeal 1:100/BioRoot™ RCS 1:10/BioRoot™ RCS 1 :100/AH Plus® sealer 1:10/AH Plus® sealer 1:100/Positive control - DMSO/Negative control - cells cultured without FBS). The supernatants were discarded and 10 µL of MTT (3-(4.5-dymethylthiazol-2-yl)-2.5-diphenyltetrazoluim bromide, Sigma-Aldrich Co., Catalog number M2128) supplemented with 150 µL Roswell Park Memorial Institute medium (RPMI, catalog number 11.835.030, 500 ml). The MTT solution was dissolved in colorless RPMI (0.5 mg/mL), filtered and sterilized using a 0.22 μm Millipore filter. The solution was added to each well) and incubated for 4 h at 37ºC. Next, the MTT solution was removed, and dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO – Fisher Scientific, Hampton, VA, USA) was added and kept for 30 min at room temperature to completely dissolve the formazan crystals. The absorbance reading was determined in a spectrophotometer device with a wavelength set at 570 nm (mQuanti; Bio-tek Instruments, Inc, Winooski, VT).

Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction - RT-PCR

The sealers dilution of 1:100 was selected for assay by qRT-PCR, after cell viability evaluation. Thus, mRNA levels for Tnf, Ptgs2, Runx2, Msx1, Ssp1 and Dmp1 were evaluated. As a result, after stimulation with extracts of the sealers, the cells were harvested and total RNA was extracted using the RNeasy® Mini kit (Qiagen Inc., Valencia, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions and quantified using a NanoDrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Wilmington, MA, USA). Next, cDNA synthesis was performed in a thermal cycler (Veriti® Thermal Cycler, Applied Biosystems) by the polymerase chain reaction. Primers and probes for Tnf (Mm 00443258_m1), Ptgs2 (Mm00478374_m1), Runx2 (Mm00501584_m1), Msx1 (Mm00440330_m1), Ssp1 (Mm00436767_m1), and Dmp1 (Mm01208363_m1) were used. Quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reactions (qRT-PCR) were done in duplicate using the TaqMan® system in a StepOne Plus® real-time PCR system (StepOne Plus® Real-Time PCR System, Applied Biosystems) using the following cycling program: 95 °C for 20 s, followed by 40 cycles at 95 °C for 1 s and 60 °C for 20 s. All protocols were performed according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Primer-probe pairs were obtained commercially, and thus their sequences are not available. (TaqMan Gene Expression Assay; Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). The quantifications were normalized using glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (Gapdh) and beta-actin (Actb) as reference genes. For each gene, relative expression was calculated by the 2 −ΔΔCt method.

Mineralization assay

Cells were cultured for 28 days under mineralization conditions in α-MEM supplemented with 10 mM β-glycerophosphate (Sigma), 50 µg/mL ascorbic acid (Sigma), 5% FBS, penicillin and 1% streptomycin (Penicillin-Streptomycin, Gibco, Invitrogen). For the experiments, 2 × 104 cells/well were plated into 96-well cell culture plates. After subconfluence, cultures were stimulated with CeraSeal 1:100, BioRoot™ RCS 1:100 and AH Plus® 1:100 filling materials. The medium was changed every 3 days and the cell culture progression was assessed by brightfield microscopy. Alizarin Red S solution was added following the previously described protocols [30]. Briefly, cultures were fixed with 70% ethanol for 10 min and stained with 2% alizarin red solution (pH 4,0) for 5 min at room temperature. To quantify the degree of calcium accumulation in the mineralized extracellular matrix, alizarin red–stained cultures were incubated with 100 mM cetylpyridinium chloride (Sigma) for 1 h to release the calcium-bound dye into the solution under agitation. The absorbance of the released dye was measured at 570 nm using a spectrophotometer and normalized by the total protein concentration in the culture.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the GraphPad Prism 8.0 Software (Prism, Chicago, IL, USA), using one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey’s post-test, adopting a significance level of 5%.

Results

AH Plus®, Bio Root™ and CeraSeal impacted cell viability

Cell viability analysis using the MTT method after 24 h showed a reduction in contact with Bio Root™ cement (p < 0.05) at 1:10 concentration (p < 0.05), while the CeralSeal and AH Plus® sealers were similar (p > 0.05) or higher (p < 0.05) than the control, respectively (Fig. 1a and b). After 48 h, the cell viability was similar in Bio Root™ and AH Plus® groups (p > 0.05), except in the group stimulated with Cera Seal or DMSO (positive control; p < 0.05) (Fig. 1c and d).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Percentage of cell viability by the MTT assay in a 24-hour period - control, DMSO, CeraSeal, Bio Root™ and AH Plus® groups at a concentration of 1:10 with αMEM (a). Percentage of cell viability by the MTT assay in a 24-hour period - control, DMSO, CeraSeal, Bio Root™ and AH Plus® groups at a concentration of 1:100 with αMEM (b). Percentage of cell viability by the MTT assay in a 48-hour period - control, DMSO, CeraSeal, Bio Root™ and AH Plus® groups at a concentration of 1:10 with αMEM (c). Percentage of cell viability by the MTT assay within 48 h - control, DMSO, CeraSeal, Bio Root™ and AH Plus® groups at a concentration of 1:100 with αMEM (d). Note: Different lowercase letters indicate that there is a statistical difference between the groups

Full size image

Root canal filling materials stimulate the expression of genes related to inflammation and mineralization

AH Plus® sealer up-regulated the expression of Tnf (p < 0.05). On the other hand, CeraSeal and BioRoot™ stimulated-cells had gene expressions similar to the control (p > 0.05) (Fig. 2a). CeraSeal and BioRoot™ sealers up-regulated Ptgs2 expression compared to the control and AH Plus® (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2b).

Fig. 2
figure 2

mRNA expression for Tnf (a) and Ptgs2 (b) within 24 h after stimulation with CeraSeal, Bio Root™ and AH Plus® materials at a concentration of 1:100 or control (cells maintained with conventional culture medium). Note: Different symbols indicate that there is a statistical difference between the groups

Full size image

AH Plus® sealer induced Runx2 expression (p < 0.05), while CeraSeal and BioRoot™ stimulated-cells presented gene expression similar to the control (p > 0.05) (Fig. 3a). Dentin matrix protein (Dmp1) synthesis was stimulated by CeraSeal and BioRoot™ differently from the AH Plus® or the control group (p < 0.0001) (Fig. 3b). The expression of Msx1 and Spp1 were not modulated by any sealer (p = 0.1769) (Fig. 3c and d).

Fig. 3
figure 3

mRNA expression for Runx2 (a), Dmp1 (b), Msx1 (c) and Spp1 (d) within 24 h after stimulation with CeraSeal, Bio Root™ and AH Plus® materials at a concentration of 1:100 or control (cells maintained with conventional culture medium). Note: Different symbols indicate that there is a statistical difference between the groups

Full size image

Filling materials did not impact the formation of mineralization nodules

After 28 days, the mineralization nodules formation was similar among all groups compared to the control (p > 0.05), except for the DMSO, which showed a reduced formation of mineralization nodules (p < 0.0001) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Representative photomicrographs of Alizarin Red S Assay. Original 20x magnification (scale = 50 μm) (a). Formation of mineralization nodules at 28 days after stimulation with the CeraSeal, Bio Root™ and AH Plus® materials at a concentration of 1:100 or control (cells maintained with culture medium containing beta glycerophosphate and ascorbic acid) and DMSO (b). Note: Different symbols indicate that there is a statistical difference between the groups. Mineralization medium= beta-glycerophosphate and ascorbic acid

Full size image

Discussion

In general, the evaluated sealers were not cytotoxic to the MC3T3 cells and did not induce the formation of mineralization nodules, but induced the gene expression related to inflammation and mineralization. Previous studies used different cell types such as fibroblasts, osteoblasts and periodontal ligament cells for evaluation of those materials [12, 31, 32]. However, we intended to analyze in vitro the cytotoxicity and repair potential of filling materials that are in contact with cells in the apical and periapical regions. Cells from osteoblast lineages were developed as models for in vitro investigation for studies of cell differentiation, cytokine and hormone production, protein synthesis and secretion, understanding of molecular mechanisms of diseases and drug pharmacokinetics [33].

MC3T3-E1 is a well-known osteoblast lineage that represents a pre-osteoblast phenotype [33]. MC3T3 cells have high proliferative capacity and mineralization potential when stimulated with growth factors, ascorbic acid or mineralization enzymes, in addition, at high passages they become senescent similar to human tissues. These factors make these cells attractive for in vitro studies on topics related to the repair and/or regeneration process of mineralized tissue [33, 34].

​The cytotoxicity of the endodontic sealers can change with time and depends on the material concentration [35, 36]. This may explain the difference in cell viability in 24 and 48 h and also in 1:10 and 1:100 concentrations observed in the present study. Our results demonstrate that only the BioRoot™ showed a reduction in cell viability at 24h and that after 48 h, it did not show differences compared to the other groups. Previously it was demonstrated that sealers based on calcium silicate, epoxy resin and zinc oxide and eugenol were cytotoxic in 24 h, but after 1 week, calcium-silicate based sealers and AH Plus did not demonstrate cytotoxicity [37]. The root canal bioactive sealers have demonstrated the ability to minimize acute inflammatory responses and promote quicker periapical healing [38]. However, in fibroblast cells, CeraSeal showed a reduction in cytotoxicity from 24 h to 7 days, unlike AH Plus, which demonstrated to be cytotoxic in all periods evaluated [39].

Resin-based endodontic sealers may be more cytotoxic to cells such as fibroblasts [40], human dental pulp stem cells [41], and periodontal ligament cells [42,43,44]. The present study is the first to demonstrate that AH Plus® is not cytotoxic to MC3T3 osteoblast lineage cells. Interestingly, there is evidence that epoxy resin-based endodontic sealers, such as AH APlus, have compatibility with alveolar osteoblasts [45]. However, AH Plus® induced higher Tnf-α gene expression compared to the BioRoot™ RCS and CeraSeal sealers, which may have negative effects of the inflammatory process. Some studies demonstrated that high levels of Tnf-α may enhance osteoclast formation and bone resorption and induce apoptosis of osteoblast cells [46,47,48]. The calcium hydroxide–based Sealapex Xpress sealer inhibited the expression of TNF-α, while the methacrylate-based resin sealer (Real Seal XT) caused the induction of TNF-α within 24 h [49].

Previous studies have shown that calcium silicate-based sealers induce positive responses, such as precipitation of hydroxyapatite, influence in cellular plasticity, differentiation of stem cells into osteoblasts, odontoblasts and cementoblasts and effectively act in the apical repair process [50,51,52]. The present results demonstrate that these materials have in vitro ability to induce genes related to bone mineralization. Previously, it was demonstrated that Ceraseal showed greater calcium release and alkalizing activity when compared to the NeoSealer Flo [53].

Bioceramic materials that are calcium silicate-based promote interactions with bone and dental tissue cells, however, their effects on different cell types are different [54]. We used some osteo/odontogenic markers in the presence of epoxy-resin and bioceramics endodontic materials, such as Runx2, an early-stage osteogenesis marker, Ssp1 and Dmp1 markers associated with the formation and mineralization by odontoblasts [54]. The present study showed that gene expression for these markers in the BioRoot™ group showed the highest expression for Dmp1, followed by the CeraSeal. AH Plus® and BioRoot™ RCS induced higher expression of Runx2 and there was no difference for Ssp1 expression in osteoblast cells.

We observed that endodontic filling sealers do not interfere in the mineralization process in a negative way, corroborating with a previous observation [37]. Evaluating the in vitro response of cytotoxicity and biocompatibility is essential in order to clarify which future processes the filling sealers will interfere in a beneficial or harmful way in the cells. The present study evaluated endodontic cements based on epoxy resin and bioceramics based on calcium silicate in osteoblast cells and demonstrated the potential for differentiation of cells in contact with these materials. Since it is an in vitro study, it has some limitations, the main one being extrapolation to clinical practice. However, it is of fundamental importance to have knowledge regarding the physicochemical aspects of these materials and how that might affect inflammation and mineralization processes so that new studies become necessary to elucidate the molecular mechanisms in the formation of mineralized tissue.

Conclusion

AH Plus®, CeraSeal and BioRoot™ RCS sealers were not cytotoxic to MC3T3 cells, but differentially induced the expression of genes related to inflammation and mineralization without impacting the biomineralization function of these cells.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Tnf-α:

Tumor necrosis factor-alpha

Ptgs2 :

Prostaglandin-endoperoxide synthase 2

Runx2 :

Runt-related transcription factor 2

Ssp1 :

Osteopontin

Dmp1 :

Dentin matrix protein 1

ISO:

International Organization for Standardization

UV:

Ultraviolet light

α MEM:

Alpha Modified Minimal Essential Medium

FBS:

Fetal bovine serum

CO2 :

Carbon dioxide

DMSO:

Dimethyl sulfoxide

MTT:

3-(4,5-dymethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazoluim bromide

RT-PCR :

Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction

Gapdh :

Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase

Actb :

Beta actin

References

  1. Paula-Silva FWG, Ghosh A, Silva LA, Kapila YL. TNF-alpha promotes an odontoblastic phenotype in dental pulp cells. J Dent Res. 2009;88(4):339–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034509334070.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Cooper PR, Holder MJ, Smith AJ. Inflammation and regeneration in the dentin-pulp complex: a double-edged sword. J Endod. 2014;40(Suppl 4):46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.01.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goldberg M, Hirata A. The dental pulp: composition, properties and functions. JSM Dent. 2017;5(1):1079.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shah D, Lynd T, Ho D, Chen J, Vines J, Jung HD, et al. Pulp-dentin tissue healing response: a discussion of current Biomedical approaches. J Clin Med. 2020;9(2):434. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9020434.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Galler KM, Weber M, Korkmaz Y, Widbiller M, Feuerer M. Inflammatory response mechanisms of the dentine-pulp complex and the Periapical tissues. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(3):1480. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22031480.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Xie Z, Shen Z, Zhan P, Yang J, Huang Q, Huang S, et al. Functional Dental Pulp Regeneration: Basic Research and clinical translation. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(16):8991. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22168991.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 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/10.1155/2020/8892561.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Paz JER, Costa PO, Souza AAC, de Oliveira IM, Falcão LF, Falcão CAM, et al. Bone repair in defects filled with AH Plus sealer and different concentrations of MTA: a study in rat tibiae. Restor Dent Endod. 2021;46(4):e48. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2021.46.e48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sequeira DB, Seabra CM, Palma PJ, Cardoso AL, Peca J, Santos JM. Effects of a new bioceramic material on human apical papilla cells. J Funct Biomater. 2018;9(4):74. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb9040074.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Dubey N, Rajan SS, Bello YD, Min KS, Rosa V. Graphene nanosheets to improve physico-mechanical properties of bioactive calcium silicate cements. Mater (Basel). 2017;10(6):606. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10060606.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jimenez-Sanchez MDC, Segura-Egea JJ, Diaz-Cuenca A. Higher hydration performance and bioactive response of the new endodontic bioactive cement MTA HP repair compared with ProRoot MTA white and NeoMTA plus. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2019;107:2109–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. López-García S, Myong-Hyun B, Lozano A, García-Bernal D, Forner L, Llena C, et al. Cytocompatibility, bioactivity potential, and ion release of three premixed calcium silicate-based sealers. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(5):1749–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03036-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sun X, Sun A, Jia X, Jin S, Zhang D, Xiao K, et al. In vitro bioactivity of AH plus with the addition of nano-magnesium hydroxide. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(6):313. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2020.02.133.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. da Silva LAB, Bertasso AS, Pucinelli CM, da Silva RAB, de Oliveira KMH, Sousa-Neto MD, et al. Novel endodontic sealers induced satisfactory tissue response in mice. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018;106:1506–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2018.07.065.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Silva LAB, Bonifacio KC, Lievana FS, Martins GG, Flores DSH, Leonardo MR, et al. Apical Periodontitis Healing following treatment is impacted by Root Canal Sealer Composition: an in Vivo and in Vitro Investigation. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clín Integr. 2022;22:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2022.058.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fonseca B, Coelho MS, Bueno CEDS, Fontana CE, Martin AS, Rocha DGP. Assessment of Extrusion and Postoperative Pain of a Bioceramic and Resin-based Root Canal Sealer. Eur J Dent. 2019;13(3):343–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-3399457.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Viapiana R, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Hungaro-Duarte MA, Tanomaru-Filho M, Camilleri J. Chemical characterization and bioactivity of epoxy resin and Portland cement-based sealers with niobium and zirconium oxide radiopacifiers. Dent Mater. 2014;30(9):1005–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.05.007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Giacomino CM, Wealleans JA, Kuhn N, Diogenes A. Comparative biocompatibility and osteogenic potential of two Bioceramic Sealers. J Endod. 2019;45(1):51–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.08.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Colombo M, Poggio C, Dagna A, Meravini MV, Riva P, Trovati F, et al. Biological and physico-chemical properties of new root canal sealers. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(2):e120–6. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.54548.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Siboni F, Taddei P, Zamparini F, Prati C, Gandolfi MG. Properties of BioRoot RCS, a tricalcium silicate endodontic sealer modified with povidone and polycarboxylate. Int Endod J. 2017;50(Suppl 2):e120–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12856.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Camps J, Jeanneau C, El Ayachi I, Laurent P, About I. Bioactivity of a Calcium Silicate-based Endodontic Cement (BioRoot RCS): interactions with Human Periodontal ligament cells in Vitro. J Endod. 2015;41(9):1469–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dimitrova-Nakov S, Uzunoglu E, Ardila-Osorio H, Baudry A, Richard G, Kellermann O, et al. In vitro bioactivity of Bioroot™ RCS, via A4 mouse pulpal stem cells. Dent Mater. 2015;31(11):1290–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.08.163.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Prüllage RK, Urban K, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Material properties of a Tricalcium Silicatecontaining, a Mineral Trioxide Aggregate-containing, and an Epoxy Resin-based Root Canal Sealer. J Endod. 2016;42(12):1784–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.09.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Arias-Moliz MT, Camilleri J. The effect of the final irrigant on the antimicrobial activity of root canal sealers. J Dent. 2016;52:30–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.06.008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Elyassi Y, Moinzadeh AT, Kleverlaan CJ. Characterization of Leachates from 6 Root Canal Sealers. J Endod. 2019;45(5):623–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.01.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kharouf N, Arntz Y, Eid A, Zghal J, Sauro S, Haikel Y, et al. Physicochemical and Antibacterial properties of Novel, Premixed Calcium Silicate-based Sealer compared to powder-liquid Bioceramic Sealer. J Clin Med. 2020;9(10):3096. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103096.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Silva Almeida LH, Moraes RR, Morgental RD, Pappen FG. Are premixed calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers comparable to conventional materials? A systematic review of in vitro studies. J Endod. 2017;43(4):527–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.11.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. International Organization for Standartization (ISO). : ISO10993-5:2009. Biological evaluation of medical devices, Part 5: tests for in vitro cytotoxicity. Switzerland; 2009.

  29. Daltoé MO, Paula-Silva FW, Faccioli LH, Gatón-Hernández PM, De Rossi A, Bezerra Silva LA. Expression of mineralization markers during pulp response to Biodentine and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate. J Endod. 2016;42(4):596–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.12.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Paula-Silva FWG, Ghosh A, Arzate H, Kapila S, da Silva LA, Kapila YL. Calcium hydroxide promotes cementogenesis and induces cementoblastic differentiation of mesenchymal periodontal ligament cells in a CEMP1- and ERK-dependent manner. Calcif Tissue Int. 2010;87(2):144–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-010-9368-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Willershausen I, Wolf T, Kasaj A, Weyer V, Willershausen B, Marroquin BB. Influence of a bioceramic root end material and mineral trioxide aggregates on fibroblasts and osteoblasts. Arch Oral Biol. 2013;58(9):1232–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2013.04.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Poggio C, Riva P, Chiesa M, Colombo M, Pietrocola G. Comparative cytotoxicity evaluation of eight root canal sealers. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(4):e574–8. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.53724.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Czekanska EM, Stoddart MJ, Richards RG, Hayes JS. In search of an osteoblast cell model for in vitro research. Eur Cell Mater. 2012;24:1–17. https://doi.org/10.22203/ecm.v024a01.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hong D, Chen HX, Yu HQ, Liang Y, Wang C, Lian QQ, et al. Morphological and proteomic analysis of early stage of osteoblast differentiation in osteoblastic progenitor cells. Exp Cell Res. 2010;316:2291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2010.05.011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Schwarze T, Fiedler I, Leyhausen G, Geurtsen W. The cellular compatibility of five endodontic sealers during the setting period. J Endod. 2002;28(11):784–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200211000-00009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hakki SS, Bozkurt SB, Hakki EE, Belli S. Effects of mineral trioxide aggregate on cell survival, gene expression associated with mineralized tissues, and biomineralization of cementoblasts. J Endod. 2009;35(4):513–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.12.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bryan TE, Khechen K, Brackett MG, Messer RL, El-Awady A, Primus CM, et al. In vitro osteogenic potential of an experimental calcium silicate-based root canal sealer. J Endod. 2010;36(7):1163–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Donnermeyer D, Bürklein S, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Endodontic sealers based on calcium silicates: a systematic review. Odontol. 2019;107(4):421–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-018-0400-3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kumar A, Kour S, Kaul S, Malik A, Dhani R, Kaul R. Cytotoxicity evaluation of Bio-C, CeraSeal, MTA - fillapex, and AH Plus root canal sealers by microscopic and 3-(4, 5 dimethythiazol-2yl)-2, 5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. J Conserv Dent. 2023;26(1):73–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_320_22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Saygili G, Saygili S, Tuglu I, Davut Capar I. Vitro cytotoxicity of GuttaFlow Bioseal, GuttaFlow 2, AH-Plus and MTA Fillapex. Iran Endod J. 2017;12(3):354–9. https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.v12i3.15415.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Manaspon C, Jongwannasiri C, Chumprasert S, Sa-Ard-Iam N, Mahanonda R, Pavasant P, et al. Human dental pulp stem cell responses to different dental pulp capping materials. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21(1):209. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01544-w.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Oh H, Egan K, Lee S, Park S, Chen D, Shin SJ, et al. Comparison of biocompatibility of calcium silicate-based sealers and epoxy resin-based sealer on human periodontal ligament stem cells. Mater (Basel). 2020;13(22):5242. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13225242.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Rodríguez-Lozano FJ, Collado-González M, Tomás-Catalá CJ, García-Bernal D, López S, Oñate-Sánchez RE, et al. GuttaFlow Bioseal promotes spontaneous differentiation of human periodontal ligament stem cells into cementoblast-like cells. Dent Mater. 2019;35(1):114–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kapralos V, Böcker J, Vach K, Altenburger M, Proksch S, Karygianni L. On the biocompatibility of endodontic sealers. Swiss Dent J. 2022;132(9):586–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kitajima I, Nakajima T, Imamura T, Takasaki I, Kawahara K, Okano T, et al. Induction of apoptosis in murine clonal osteoblasts expressed by human T-cell leukemia virus type I tax by NF-kappa B and TNF-alpha. J Bone Min Res. 1996;11(2):200–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.5650110209.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Choi EM, Hwang JK. Effects of (+)-catechin on the function of osteoblastic cells. Biol Pharm Bull. 2003;26(4):523–6. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.26.523.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lu RJ, Xing HL, Liu CJ, Shu Y, Guo B, Chu XY, et al. Antibacterial peptides inhibit MC3T3-E1 cells apoptosis induced by TNF-α through p38 MAPK pathway. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(15):943. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-5338.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Silva LAB, Hidalgo LRC, Souza-Neto MD, Arnez MFM, Barnett F, Hernández PMG, et al. Cytotoxicity and Inflammatory mediators Release by macrophages exposed to real seal XT and Sealapex Xpress. Braz Dent J. 2021;32(1):48–52. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202103330.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kim JR, Nosrat A, Fouad AF. Interfacial characteristics of Biodentine and MTA with dentine in simulated body fluid. J Dent. 2015;43(2):241–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.11.004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sanz JL, López-García S, Rodríguez-Lozano FJ, Melo M, Lozano A, Llena C, et al. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Zamparini F, Prati C, Taddei P, Spinelli A, Di Foggia M, Gandolfi MG. Chemical-Physical properties and Bioactivity of New Premixed Calcium Silicate-Bioceramic Root Canal Sealers. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(22):13914. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232213914. PMID: 36430393; PMCID: PMC9692705.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Song W, Li S, Tang Q, Chen L, Yuan Z. In vitro biocompatibility and bioactivity of calcium silicate–based bioceramics in endodontics (review). Int J Mol Med. 2021;48(1):128. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijmm.2021.4961.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The present study was supported by grants from the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) – grant 2019/00204-1 to FWGPS and fellowship 2019/02432-1 to LAAJ.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Luciano Aparecido de Almeida-Junior

    Present address: Department of Clinics and Surgery, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Alfenas, Alfenas, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. do Cafe s/n, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, CEP: 14040-904, Brazil

    Luciano Aparecido de Almeida-Junior, Giuliana de Campos Chaves Lamarque, Maya Fernanda Manfrin Arnez, Raquel Assed Bezerra Silva, Léa Assed Bezerra Silva & Francisco Wanderley Garcia Paula-Silva

  2. Universidad Católica de El Salvador, San Salvador, El Salvador

    Henry Herrera

  3. School of Denstistry, Universidade de Rio Verde, Rio Verde, Goiás, Brazil

    Francine Lorencetti-Silva

Authors
  1. Luciano Aparecido de Almeida-Junior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giuliana de Campos Chaves Lamarque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Henry Herrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maya Fernanda Manfrin Arnez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francine Lorencetti-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Raquel Assed Bezerra Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Léa Assed Bezerra Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Francisco Wanderley Garcia Paula-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LAAJ, conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing - original draft, writing - review and editing, funding acquisition. GCCL, formal analysis, writing - original draft, visualization, writing - original draft, writing - review and editing. HH, resources, writing - original draft, writing - review and editing. MFMA, conceptualization, visualization, writing - original draft, writing - review and editing. FLS, conceptualization, writing - original draft, writing - review and editing, RABS, resources, writing - review and editing. LABS, resources, writing - review and editing, supervision. FWGPS, conceptualization, formal analysis, writing - original draft, writing - review and editing, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco Wanderley Garcia Paula-Silva.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Almeida-Junior, L.A., de Campos Chaves Lamarque, G., Herrera, H. et al. Analysis of the cytotoxicity and bioactivity of CeraSeal, BioRoot™ and AH Plus® sealers in pre-osteoblast lineage cells. BMC Oral Health 24, 262 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04021-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04021-2

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us