In vitro toxicity of MTA Compared with other Primary Teeth Pulpotomy Agents

Objective: The main goal of this work is to compare the In vitro toxicity of MTA with other primary teeth pulpotomy agents. Study Design: The In vitro toxicity of MTA, calcium hydroxide, ferric sulphate solution,diluted formocresol and Buckley's formocresol were tested using MTT and Neutral Red Uptake cell viability assays. The results for MTA were compared to those obtained for the other substances using ANOVA and Tukey statistical tests (p<0,05). Results: MTA had the lower in vitro toxicity and Buckley's formocresol, the higher, with statiscally significant difference. Conclusion: Among the primary teeth pulpotomy agents tested, MTA showed the lower In vitro toxicity, standing as the most promising substitute to formocresol

1. Milnes AR. Persuasive evidence that formocresol use in pediatric den-tistry is safe. J Can Dent Assoc, 72: 247–248, 2006.

2. Hingston EJ, Parmar S, Hunter, ML. Vital pulpotomy in the primary dentition: attitudes and practices of community dental staff in Wales, 17: 186–191, 2007.

3. Casas MJ, Kenny DJ, Judd PL, Johnston DH. Do we still need formocresol in pediatric dentistry? 71: 749–751, 2005.

4. Hauman CHJ, Love RM. Biocompatibility of dental materials used in contemporary endodontic therapy: a review. Part 2. Root-canal filling materials. Int Endod J, 36: 147–160, 2003.

5. Ibricelic H, Al-Jame Q. Ferric sulphate as pulpotomy agent in primary teeth: twenty-month clinical follow-up. J Clin Pediatr Dent 24: 269-272, 2000.

6. Peng L, Ye L, Tan H, Zhou X. Evaluation of the formocresol versus mineral trioxide aggregate primary molar pulpotomy: a meta analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 102: e40–e44, 2006.

7. Huth KC, Paschos E, Hajek-al-Khatar N, Hollweck R, Crispin A, Hickel R et al. Effectiveness of 4 pulpotomy techniques-Randomized controlled trial. J Dent Res, 84: 1144–118, 2005.

8. Karimjee CK, Koka S, Rallis DM, Gound TG. Cellular toxicity of min-eral trioxide aggregate mixed with an alternative delivery vehicle. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 102: e115–e120, 2006.

9. Vajrabhaya L, Korsuwannawong S, Jantarat J, Korre S. Biocompatibil-ity of furcal perforation repair material using cell culture technique: Ketac Molar versus ProRoot MTA. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 102: e48–e50, 2006.

10. Aienehchi M, Dadvand S, Fayazi S, Bayat-Movahed S. Randommized controlled trial of mineral trioxide aggregate and formocresol for pulpotomy in primary molar teeth. Int Endod J, 40: 261–272, 2007.

11. Caicedo R, Abbot PV, Alongi DJ, Alarcon MY. Clinical, radiographic and histologic analysis of the effects of mineral trioxide aggregate used in direct pulp capping and pulpotomies of primary teeth. Aust Dent J, 51: 297–305, 2006.

12. Hanks CT, Wataha, JC, Sun Z. In vitro models of biocompatibility: a review. Dent Mater, 12: 186–193, 1996.

13. Edmonson JM, Armstrong LS, Martinez AO. A rapid and simple MTT-based spectrophotometric assay for determining drug sensitivity in monolayer cultures. J Tissue Cult Meth, 11: 15–17, 1988.

14. Borenfreund E, Puerner JA. Toxicity determined in vitro by morpho-logical alterations and neutral red absorption. Toxicol Let,t 24: 119–124, 1985.

15. Ratanasathien S, Wataha JC, Hanks CT, Dennison JB. Cytotoxic inter-active effects of dentin bonding components on mouse fibroblasts. J Dent Res, 74: 1602–1606, 1995.

16. Kinomoto Y, Carnes JR, Ebisu S. Cytotoxicity of intracanal bleaching agents on periodontal ligament cells in vitro. J Endod, 27: 574–577, 2001.

17. Hanks CT, Fat JC, Wataha JC, Corcoran JF. Cytotoxicity and dentin permeability of carbamide peroxide and hydrogen peroxide vital bleaching materials, in vitro. J Dent Res, 72: 931–938, 1993.

18. Barnhart BD, Chuang A, Dalle Lucca JJ, Roberts S, Liewehr F, Joyce AP. An in vitro evaluation of various endodontic irrigants on human gingival fibroblasts. J Endod, 31: 613–615, 2005.

19. Geurtsen W, Lehmann F, Spahl W, Leyhausen G. Cytotoxicity of 35 dental resin composite monomers/additives in permanent 3T3 and three human primary fibroblast cultures. J Biomed Mater Res, 41: 474–480, 1998.

20. Seow WK, Thong YH. Modulation of polymorphonuclear leucocyte adherence by pulpotomy medicaments: effects of formocresol, glu-taraldehyde, eugenol and calcium hydroxide. Pediatr Dent, 8: 16–21, 1986.

21. Osorio RM, Hefti A, Vertucci FJ, Shawley AL. Cytotoxicity of endodontic materials. J Endod, 24: 91–96, 1998.

22. Dominguez MS, Witherspoon DE, Gutmann JL, Opperman LA. Histo-logical and scanning electron microscopy assessment of various vital pulp therapy materials. J Endod, 29: 324–333, 2003.

23. Da Silva GN, Braz MG, De Camargo EA, Salvadori DM, Ribeiro DA. Genotoxicity in primary human peripheral lymphocytes after exposure to regular and white mineral trioxide aggregate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 102: e50–e54, 2006.

24. Takita T, Hayashi M, Takeichi O, Ogiso B, Suzuki N, Otsuka K et al. Effect of mineral trioxide aggegate on proliferation of culured human dental pulp cells. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 39: 415–422, 2006.

25. Cotes O, Boj JR, Canalda C, Carreras M. Pulpal tissue reaction to formocresol versus ferric sulphate in pulpotomized rat teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 21: 247–253, 1997.

26. Fuks AB, Eidelman E, Cleaton-Jones P, Michaeli Y. Pulp response to ferric sulfate, diluted formocresol and IRM in pulpotomized primary baboon teeth. J Dent Child, 64: 254–259, 1997.

27. Schweikl H, Schmalz G. Toxicity parameters for cytotoxicity testing of dental materials in two different mammalian cell lines. Eur J Oral Sci, 104: 292–299, 1996.

28. Sletten GB, Dahl JE. Cytotoxic effects of extracts of compomers. Acta Odontol Scand, 57: 316–322, 1999.

29. Lönroth EC, Dahl JE. Cytotoxicity of liquids and powders of chemi-cally different dental materials evaluated using dimethylthiazol diphenyltetrazolium and neutral red tests. Acta Odontol Scand, 61: 52–56, 2003.

30. Souza NJ, Justo GZ, Oliveira CR, Haun M, Bincoletto C. Cytotoxicity of materials used in perforation repair tested using the V79 fibroblast cell line and the granulocyte-macrophage progenitor cells. Int Endod J, 39: 40–47, 2006.

31. Sumer M, Muglali M, Bodrumlu E, Guvenc T. Reactions of connective tissue to amalgam, intermediate restorative material, mineral trioxide aggregate, and mineral trioxide aggregate mixed with chlorhexidine. J Endod, 32: 1094–1096, 2006.

32. Camilleri J, Pitt Ford TR. Mineral trioxide aggregate: a review of the constituents and biological properties of the material. Int Endod J, 39: 747–754, 2006.

33. Ribeiro DA, Matsumoto MA, Duarte MAH, Marques MEA, Salvadori DMF. Ex vivo biocompatibility tests of regular and white forms of min-eral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J, 39: 26–30, 2006.

34. Holan G, Eidelman E, Fuks AB. Mineral trioxide aggregate in primary molar pulpotomies. Pediatr Dent, 27: 129–136, 2005.

35. Karabucak B, Li D, Lim J, Iqbal M. Vital pulp therapy with mineral tri-oxide aggregate. Dental Traumatol, 21: 240–23, 2005.

36. Barrieshi-Nuasair K, Qudeimat MA. A prospective clinical study of mineral trioxide aggregate for partial pulpotomy in cariously exposed permanent teeth. J Endod, 32: 731–735, 2006.