Cytotoxicity of Newly Developed Ortho MTA Root-end Filling Materials

IntroductionVarious materials have been advocated for use as root-end filling materials. The purpose of the present in vitro study was to compare the cytotoxicity of 4 root-end filling materials: glass ionomer cement (GIC; Fuji II, GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan), reinforced zinc oxide–eugenol cement (IRM; Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), and 2 types of mineral trioxide aggregate.MethodsThis study used MG-63 cells derived from a human osteosarcoma. To quantitatively evaluate the cytotoxicity of test materials, the 2,3-bis-(2-methoxy-4-nitro-5-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium-5-carboxanilide (XTT) assay was used. The cells were exposed to the extracts and incubated. Cell viability was recorded by measuring the optical density of each test well in reference to controls. Each specimen was examined by scanning electron microscopy for the observation of cell morphology.ResultsThe XTT assay showed that the cell viability of ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Tulsa Dental) was higher than that of GIC and Ortho MTA (BioMTA, Seoul, Republic of Korea) at all time points. IRM showed significantly lower cell viability than the other groups. The scanning electron microscopic analysis revealed that elongated, dense, and almost confluent cells were observed in the cultures of GIC, Ortho MTA, and ProRoot MTA specimens. In contrast, cells on the surface of IRM were rounded in shape, and the numbers and the density of the cells were smaller than that in the other groups.ConclusionsProRoot MTA and GIC showed good biocompatibility in this study. However, Ortho MTA showed lower biocompatibility compared with ProRoot MTA and GIC.