In vitro biocompatibility of a dentine substitute cement on human MG63 osteoblasts cells: Biodentine™ versus MTA(®)
Abstract
AIM: To compare the in vitro biocompatibility of Biodentine™ and White ProRoot(®) mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA(®) ) with MG63 osteoblast-like cells and to characterize the cement surface.
METHODOLOGY: A direct contact model for MG63 osteoblast-like cells with cements was used for 1, 3 and 5 days. Four end-points were investigated: (i) cement surface characterization by atomic force microscopy (AFM), (ii) cell viability by MTT assay, (iii) protein amount quantification by Bradford assay and (iv) cell morphology by SEM. Statistical analyses were performed by analysis of variance (anova) with a repetition test method.
RESULTS: The roughness of the cements was comparable as revealed by AFM analysis. The MTT test for Biodentine™ was similar to that of MTA(®) . Biodentine™ and MTA(®) induced a similar but slight decrease in metabolic activity. The amount of total protein was significantly enhanced at day three (P < 0.05) but slightly decreased at day five for both tested samples. Biodentine™ was tolerated as well as MTA(®) in all cytotoxicity assays. SEM observations showed improvement of cell attachment and proliferation on both material surfaces following the three incubation periods.
CONCLUSION: The biocompatibility of Biodentine™ to bone cells was comparable to MTA(®) .
Read the paper
Related studies
- Development of a crushable foam model for human trabecular bone
- Data-driven motion compensation in HR-pQCT.
- Modeling of structure, quality, and function in the orthodontic patient
- Exploring the mechanism of Heidihuang Pill in the treatment of osteoporosis based on network pharmacology, molecular docking, and experimental validation
- Effect of fabric on the accuracy of computed tomography-based finite element analyses of the vertebra
- Use of interventions involving virtual reality tasks during the climacteric: a systematic review
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.