In vitro genotoxicity of root canal sealers

Scoping review on the genotoxicity of silver nanoparticles in endodontics: therapeutic saviors or genetic saboteurs?

Silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) have gained prominence in endodontics due to their exceptional antimicrobial properties. However, concerns regarding their genotoxic potential have prompted investigations into their safety profiles. This scoping review aims to consolidate current knowledge on the genotoxic effects of AgNPs in the field of endodontics. A thorough literature search across seven electronic databases was conducted using specific keywords. Inclusion criteria included experimental studies published in English from January 1960 to March 2024, addressing the genotoxicity of AgNPs in endodontic applications. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently. The Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies (QUIN) tool was employed to evaluate the risk of bias in each study. 5 articles were selected, of which 3 were in vitro experimental designs, while the remaining were ex vivo studies. All were published between 2009 and 2021. AgNPs have been used as root canal irrigating solutions, pulp-capping materials, and root canal sealers. Most studies employed the comet assay for genotoxic evaluation. One study was found to have a low risk of bias, while others were categorized as having a medium risk. Mixed findings were noted on the genotoxic effects of AgNPs using various assays. The genotoxic potential of AgNPs somewhat poses concerns for endodontic practices. This review highlights the need for further research to develop safer alternatives and optimize their concentrations and exposure durations.

Genotoxicity induced by endodontic sealers: A systematic review

Introduction

This systematic review aimed to help further elucidate the following question: are endodontics sealers able to induce DNA damage in vitro or in vivo?

Methods

This study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement 2020 criteria. A total of 23 studies were carefully selected by the authors.

Results

Regarding the general characteristics, most studies evaluated, on average, 3-5 types of sealers (resin epoxy, salicylate, salicylate + MTA, zinc oxide-eugenol, bioceramic products, calcium hydroxide), performing comparisons between them. Our results demonstrate that endodontic sealers may be a genotoxic agent since most studies demonstrated positive findings, with the resin-based ones being the most potentially genotoxic.

Conclusion

The type of genotoxicity assay, material evaluated, and dilution concentration levels influenced the outcome. This study clarifies whether and to what extent endodontic sealers are capable of inducing DNA injury in oral tissues.

Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of various types of endodontic sealers in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO-K1) cells

This study aimed to evaluate the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of five endodontic sealers (AH Plus, MTA Fillapex, Endoseal MTA, Sealapex, and Zinc oxide eugenol) in Chinese hamster ovary cells. Cytotoxicity was evaluated by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay to check cell viability at 1, 3, and 7 days. Genotoxicity was assessed by cytokinesis-block micronucleus, single-cell gel electrophoresis, and γH2AX immunofluorescence assays. Cell viability of all endodontic sealers, except Endoseal MTA, on day 1 was less than 100%. Endoseal MTA showed the highest cell viability on day 7. AH Plus and Endoseal MTA showed less DNA damage than other sealers. After complete setting, AH Plus and Endoseal MTA showed low genotoxicity, which could reduce DNA damage in periapical cells, making them suitable as endodontic sealers.

Influence of Commonly Used Endodontic Irrigants on the Setting Time and Metal Composition of Various Base Endodontic Sealers

The present study aimed to evaluate if commonly used endodontic irrigants such as 3% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl, Prime Dental, Thane, India), 2% chlorhexidine (CHX, Sigma-Aldrich Co., St. Louis, MO, USA), and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA, Meta-Biomed Co. Ltd., Cheongju-si, South Korea) influenced the setting time and metal composition of different base endodontic sealers on exposure. AH Plus (Dentsply De Trey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), Sealapex (SybronEndo, Orange, CA, USA), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Fillapex (Angelus Soluções Odontológicas, Londrina, Brazil), and Tubli-Seal (Kerr Dental, Orange, CA, USA) were selected as the different base representatives of endodontic sealers. These sealers were exposed to 3% NaOCl, 2% CHX, and 17% EDTA, and the individual setting time of the sealers was analyzed. The samples were analyzed for heavy metal elements such as chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), and beryllium (Be) by using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis. For statistical analysis, one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s tests were used. All selected sealers showed variation in setting time post-exposure to different irrigants. MTA Fillapex had the shortest mean setting time (215.7 min, post-exposure at 187.3 min) (p < 0.05). Mean setting time was also affected for AH Plus (479.6 min, post-exposure at 423.9 min) (p < 0.05) and Tubli-Seal (514.7 min, post-exposure at 465.2 min) (p < 0.05). Sealapex showed the maximum reduction of setting time (864.8 min, post-exposure at 673.4 min) (p < 0.05). All tested sealers showed heavy metals (Cr, Ni, Co, Cd, As, Hg, and Pb) in their composition, and the quantities were influenced by interaction with different irrigants. The heavy metal Be was not seen in any of the samples. Sealapex showed the longest setting time in comparison to other test sealers. Heavy metals were most present in Sealapex, followed by AH Plus, Tubli-Seal, and MTA Fillapex. MTA Fillapex was seen to have the shortest setting time, and heavy metal composition was least affected on interaction with different commonly used endodontic irrigants. Further, this study provides significant insight into the influence of different endodontic irrigants on interaction with different base endodontic sealers, which has not been reported previously, and future studies should emphasize endodontic irrigant-sealer interactions and their possible effects in the long run.

Genotoxicity of root canal sealers: a literature review

OBJECTIVES

Root canal sealers are widely used worldwide in endodontics to prevent reinfection and growth of surviving microorganisms. Considering the strong correlation between genetic damage and carcinogenesis, evaluation of genotoxicity induced by endodontic sealers is recommended for elucidating the true health risks to patients and professionals. The purpose of this article was to provide a comprehensive review of studies involving genotoxicity analysis of endodontic sealers and the used methodologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was made in PubMed using the following combination of words "genotoxicity," "mutagenicity," "endodontic sealers," and "root canal sealers." A total of 39 articles with genotoxicity studies were selected for the present study.

RESULTS

Sealers have been ranked in decreasing order of their genotoxicity as: ZOE sealers > GIC sealers > S sealers > ER sealers > MR sealers > Novel sealers > CH sealers > CS sealers.

CONCLUSIONS

All published data showed some evidence of genotoxicity for most of the commercial root canal sealers; however, contradictory results were found, mainly for AH Plus, the most studied sealer.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The information provided would direct the endodontists to use the less genotoxic materials in endodontic treatment in a way to reduce DNA damage promoting oral healthcare.

Neurotoxicity evaluation of three root canal sealers on cultured rat trigeminal ganglion neurons

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the possible neurotoxic effects of 3 root canal sealers (RCSs) (AH Plus, GuttaFlow, iRoot SP) on cultured rat trigeminal ganglion (TG) neurons.

Material and Methods

Primary cultures of TG neurons were obtained from 1 to 2-day old rats. Freshly mixed RCSs were incubated in sterile phosphate buffered saline and cells were incubated with supernatants of the RCSs for different time intervals (1-, 3-, 6- and 24-h; 1 or 1/10 diluted) and viability/cytotoxicity was tested by counting the number of live cells. Pair of dishes with cells from the same culture incubated with only culture medium was considered as negative controls. Cell images were captured and acquired at x200 magnification using a microscope equipped with a camera using special image program. The viable cells were manually counted assigned from the images for each dose and incubation duration. Data was analysed by using 1-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc tests.

Results

There was no significant change in cell viability after short duration of incubation (1- and 3-h) with the supernatant of any of RCSs, except for undiluted-AH Plus at 3-h. When AH Plus was compared with other RCSs, for diluted supernatants, there was only significant difference between iRoot SP and AH Plus at 24-h (P<0.05). Whereas undiluted-AH Plus was significantly more cytotoxic for 3-, 6- and 24-h periods as compared to respective incubation periods of undiluted other groups (P<0.05). GuttaFlow groups had similar neurotoxic effect on cells for all test periods.

Conclusions

All tested RCSs exhibited a variable degree of neurotoxicity on these primary sensory neurons of orofacial tissues, depending on their chemical compositions. GuttaFlow and iRoot SP evoked a less toxic response to TG cells than AH Plus.

Key words:Neurotoxicity, trigeminal ganglia, cell culture, root canal sealer, AH Plus, GuttaFlow, iRoot SP.

Biotoxicity of commonly used root canal sealers: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The main objective of a root canal sealer is to provide a fluid tight seal. The purpose of this systematic meta-analysis was to determine the relative toxicity of commonly used root canal sealers like zinc oxide eugenol, calcium hydroxide, and resin-based sealers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online search was conducted in peer-reviewed journals listed in PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO, and IndMed databases between 2000 and 2012). Statistical analysis was carried out by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post-hoc comparison by Bonferroni method. The comparison between toxicity at 24 h and between 3 and 7 days was done by using paired t-test for each sealer.

RESULTS

At 24 h, the relative biotoxicity of the three sealers reported was insignificant (P- value 0.29), but the difference in toxicity was found significant (P < 0.001) after 3 days.

CONCLUSION

Calcium hydroxide sealer and zinc oxide eugenol were found to be significantly biotoxic as compared to resin-based sealers after 3 days.

Biocompatibility of various dental materials in contemporary dentistry: a narrative insight

In the past few decades, there has been an increase in demand for safety evaluation and control of dental materials used daily in dentistry; however, this task is difficult and cumbersome. Dental materials that are passive and do not react with the oral environment will be more stable and have superior durability. It is expected that dental materials will be universally accepted and will not cause harm or injury to the surrounding structures in the oral cavity. This is an entirely negative approach to the material tolerance and biocompatibility, and hides the possibility that some positive gains can be achieved. Side-effects of dental materials are believed to be rare, and generally, those that have been reported are mild. There are wide varieties of materials used in dentistry, which include liners, irrigants, intracanal filling materials, intracanal medicaments, prosthetic materials, restorative materials, subgingival implants, and mouth rinses. Therefore, in this study, the biocompatibility of various commonly-used clinical materials used in contemporary dentistry was discussed.

Epiphany root canal sealer prepared with resinous solvent is irritating to rat subcutaneous tissues

Objective: This study assessed the biocompatibility of the Epiphany endodontic sealer prepared with resinous solvent of Epiphany system (Thinning resin) in rat subcutaneous tissues. Study Design: Polyethylene tubes were filled with the sealer and 4 groups were established: GI, Epiphany prepared with 1 drop of resinous solvent (RS); GII, Epiphany prepared with 1 drop of RS and photoactivated; GIII, Epiphany associated with self-etch primer and prepared with 1 drop of RS; GIV, Epiphany associated with self-etch primer, prepared with 1 drop of RS and photoactivated. The filled tubes were implanted into 4 different regions of the dorsum of 20 adult male rats. Results: After 7, 14 and 21 days, all groups presented a moderate to severe chronic inflammation, necrosis and foreign-body giant cells. At 42 days, although the intensity of chronic inflammatory reaction decreased, the other features still were observed. Conclusion: The Epiphany sealer prepared with the RS was irritating to rat subcutaneous tissues.

Key words:Biocompatibility, Epiphany, methacrylate resin sealer, resinous solvent, root canal sealer.

Cytotoxicity evaluation of Gutta Flow and Endo Sequence BC sealers

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the cytotoxicity of GuttaFlow and EndoSequence BC sealers and compared them with AH Plus and Tubli-Seal sealers.

STUDY DESIGN

Samples (0.5 mg) of freshly mixed or set BC, GuttaFlow, AH Plus, and Tubli-Seal sealers were eluted with 300, 600, and 1,000 μL cell culture medium for 24 and 72 hours. L929 cells were seeded into 96-well plates at 3 × 10(4) cells/well and cultured with 100 μL eluate from each eluate group. Cells cultured only with culture medium served as control. After 24 hours' incubation, the cytotoxicity was evaluated by MTT assay. Cell viability was calculated as the percentage of the control group, and the results were analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

For the freshly mixed sealer, cell viability in the AH Plus group was less than in all of the other 3 sealer groups. The Tubli-Seal sealer group had less cell viability than the EndoSequence BC and GuttaFlow sealer groups. For the set sealer, the Tubli-Seal and AH Plus groups had less cell viability than the EndoSequence BC and GuttaFlow sealer groups. There was no cell viability difference between the EndoSequence BC and GuttaFlow sealer groups in the either freshly mixed or set sealer group.

CONCLUSIONS

The GuttaFlow and EndoSequence BC sealers have lower cytotoxicity than the AH Plus and Tubli-Seal sealers.

Tissue reaction to sealing materials: different view at biocompatibility

The biodegradability of root canal sealers in areas other than the root canal system is crucial to the overall success rate of endodontic treatment. The aim of the present study was to investigate, the cell and tissue reaction to GuttaFlow and AHPlus, both in vitro and in vivo. For the in vitro experiments the materials were incubated with Human Periodontal Ligament Fibroblasts and cell proliferation and cytotoxicity analyses were performed. Additional fluorescence-microscope stainings were carried out in order to visualize cell growth and morphology. For assessment of the tissue reaction to the materials a subcutaneous implantation model in Wistar rats was employed and the inflammatory response to the materials was visualized by means of general and specific histology after 6 weeks. Human gingival fibroblasts proliferation seemed to be dependent upon dental material and cultivation time. After an incubation period of 96 hrs AHPlus proved to be significantly (p < 0.002) more cytotoxic than GuttaFlow, as only a small number of fibroblasts survived on AHPlus. In vivo, GuttaFlow was surrounded by a fibrous capsule and no degradation took place, while AHPlus induced a well-vascularized granulation tissue in which the material was phagocyted by macrophages. The results of this study demonstrate that a potential cytotoxic effect of a sealing material may beneficial in order to have antibacterial properties and induce self degradation when accidentally extruded over the apical foramen.