Chemical Analysis, Biocompatibility And Dentinogenic Differentiation Potential Of Two Formulations Of White Portland Cement Of Different Origin
Loading...
Date
2015-02
Authors
Aly Ahmed, Hany Mohamed
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Abstract
Advances in endodontic bio-materials are at the forefront of endodontic research. The aim of the current study was to determine and compare the chemical composition, biocompatibility and dentinogenic differentiation potential of two formulations of white Portland cement (WPC) of different origin and white mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA). Normal and fast (addition of calcium chloride dihydrate) set formulations of WMTA, Malaysian and Egyptian WPCs (MAWPC and EGWPC) were prepared for chemical analysis. Scanning electron microscope (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) micro-analysis and X-ray diffraction (XRD) were used for surface morphology evaluation, elemental and phase analysis, respectively. After the preparation of optimized serial dilutions, the cytotoxicity was evaluated on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts (HPLFs) and dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) using methyl-thiazol-diphenyltetrazolium (MTT) assay after 24 and 72 hours. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test (P=0.05) followed by pairwise comparisons using Mann-Whitney test. Cell attachment properties were examined on HPLFs and DPSCs under SEM using a novel technique after 24 and 72 hours. The dentinogenic differentiation of DPSCs was assessed based on the expression of BGLAP, DSPP, RUNX-2 and SPP1. After one, three, seven and 14 days of incubation, the expression was examined using real-time PCR. One way ANOVA followed by post-hoc
xxxiv
comparisons was used for statistical analysis (P=0.05). The results showed that the surface morphology and chemical composition of both formulations demonstrated considerable variations. The elemental composition of WMTA differed from both WPCs by the presence of bismuth and absence of sulphur. Potassium was merely observed in MAWPC. Phase analysis demonstrated the presence of various chemical compounds. The cytotoxicity evaluation showed different cellular responses of HPLFs compared to DSPCs. Generally, both formulations favoured the viability of HPLFs. However, the fast set formulations demonstrated severe to moderate cytotoxicity on DPSCs at three successive concentrations. Significant differences between EGWPC and MAWPC were identified (P<0.05). The cell attachment properties of all materials were favourable, however, HPLFs attached and spread over the samples better than DPSCs. The dentinogenic differentiation potential showed fluctuating expressions at days 1, 3 and 7. However at day 14, all genes were up-regulated. Generally, fast set formulations showed higher expressions than normal set counterparts (P<0.05). In conclusion, WPC of different origin shows differences in chemical composition and biological properties. However, the biological profile of both WPC is comparable to that of WMTA. This holds promise for potential use of MAWPC and EGWPC as cost effective substitutes in clinical dentistry.
Description
Keywords
Chemical composition, biocompatibility , of white Portland cement.