Cell-cycle deregulation induced by three different root canal sealers in vitro

MTT versus other cell viability assays to evaluate the biocompatibility of root canal filling materials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to compare the cytotoxicity of root canal filling materials (RCFMs) assessed using tetrazolium salt-based tests (TSBT), including the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay, with those obtained using other cell viability assays.

METHODS

A search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and OpenGrey up to March 2019, followed by a manual search. According to the Participants, Exposure, Comparator and Outcomes (PECO) criteria, in vitro studies that evaluated the cytotoxic effect of RCFMss on animal and/or human cells through TSBT and at least one other viability assay were compared. The methodological quality of selected papers was assessed using ToxRTool^® and SciRAP^® . Data were analysed using Wilcoxon's signed-rank test for paired samples and linear weighting kappa.

RESULTS

A total of 230 non-duplicated records were identified. After applying the eligibility criteria, 55 studies were selected for methodological evaluation, seven were selected by manual searching, 22 were excluded for methodological reasons, and 40 were included. A total of 410 comparisons were performed between TSBT and distinct cell viability tests (DCVT). MTT had moderate concordance with DCVT using human cells (n = 138 samples) (P = 0.507; k = 0.4225) and animal cells (n = 122 samples) (P = 0.124; k = 0.5775). XTT had good concordance using human (n = 110 samples) (P = 0.507; k = 0.6336) and animal cells (n = 12 samples) (P = 0.564; k = 0.6604). MTT, XTT, WST and MTS assays showed moderate concordance with DCVT (n = 410 samples) (P = 0.375; k = 0.5138) and complete agreement in 226 samples.

DISCUSSION

The included studies had methodological heterogeneity that was minimized by the systematic review methodology.

CONCLUSIONS

MTT and XTT do not cause over- or underestimation of cell viability during cytotoxicity screening of root canal filling materials, implying that these assays can be considered reliable for this purpose. Nonetheless, the development of protocols for the cytotoxic screening of these materials on 3D tissue-like cultures aiming to improve their predictability in the clinical scenario is suggested.

Biocompatibility of Root Canal Sealers: A Systematic Review of In Vitro and In Vivo Studies

(1) Aim: To perform a systematic review of the literature on the biocompatibility of root canal sealers that encompasses the various types of sealers that are commercially available as well as both in vitro and in vivo evidence. (2) Methods: This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (ID 140445) and was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines using the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Science Direct, and Web of Science Core Collection. Studies published between 2000 and 11 June 2019 that evaluated cytotoxicity (cell viability/proliferation) and biocompatibility (tissue response) of root canal sealers were included. (3) Results: From a total of 1249 studies, 73 in vitro and 21 in vivo studies were included. In general, studies suggest that root canal sealers elicit mild to severe toxic effects and that several factors may influence biocompatibility, e.g., material setting condition and time, material concentration, and type of exposure. Bioactive endodontic sealers seem to exhibit a lower toxic potential in vitro. (4) Conclusions: The available evidence shows that root canal sealers exhibit variable toxic potential at the cellular and tissue level. However, the methodological heterogeneity among studies included in this systematic review and the somewhat conflicting results do not allow a conclusion on which type of sealer presents higher biocompatibility. Further research is crucial to achieve a better understanding of the biological effects of root canal sealers.