International endodontic journal · 2023
In vitro response of dental pulp stem cells to dural substitute grafts: Analysis of cytocompatibility and bioactivity.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elhakim Ahmed, Kim Sunil, Shin Su-Jung
Аннотация
AIM: The objective of this study was to assess and compare the cytocompatibility of decellularized porcine small intestine submucosal dural graft from Biodesign (BD) and polyester urethane-based Neuro-Patch (NP) dural substitute with the mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and the cyanoacrylate-based Histoacryl surgical adhesive. Furthermore, the study evaluated the inflammatory response and osteogenic differentiation of human dental pulp stem cells (hDPSCs) when cultured in direct contact with the dural substitutes in comparison with MTA.
METHODOLOGY: The viability of hDPSCs in direct contact with the tested materials was investigated in vitro by a CCK-8 assay. Additionally, the effects of dural substitutes and MTA on the expression of the inflammatory mediator interleukin-6 (IL-6) was investigated via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), whilst effects on the differentiation were evaluated using alizarin red staining, alkaline phosphatase staining, ELISA and energy-dispersive X-ray elemental mapping.
RESULTS: The dural substitutes were cytocompatible and promoted cellular adhesion. The Histoacryl and MTA demonstrated cytotoxicity in fresh preparations but showed a more favourable cellular reaction when set. Investigations of biological activity indicated that dural substitute membranes did not induce an inflammatory response or osteogenic differentiation of hDPSCs. In contrast, MTA induced the expression of IL-6 and alkaline phosphatase activity contributing to enhanced differentiation and mineralization.
CONCLUSIONS: The dural substitute membranes showed cytocompatibility, did not provoke an inflammatory response and maintained the stemness of hDPSCs better than MTA. Additionally, the set Histoacryl surgical adhesive demonstrated good biocompatibility. Taken together, these results highlight the potential use of dural substitutes in regenerative endodontic procedures as coronal barriers alternative to MTA to reduce the incidence of intracanal calcifications.
METHODOLOGY: The viability of hDPSCs in direct contact with the tested materials was investigated in vitro by a CCK-8 assay. Additionally, the effects of dural substitutes and MTA on the expression of the inflammatory mediator interleukin-6 (IL-6) was investigated via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), whilst effects on the differentiation were evaluated using alizarin red staining, alkaline phosphatase staining, ELISA and energy-dispersive X-ray elemental mapping.
RESULTS: The dural substitutes were cytocompatible and promoted cellular adhesion. The Histoacryl and MTA demonstrated cytotoxicity in fresh preparations but showed a more favourable cellular reaction when set. Investigations of biological activity indicated that dural substitute membranes did not induce an inflammatory response or osteogenic differentiation of hDPSCs. In contrast, MTA induced the expression of IL-6 and alkaline phosphatase activity contributing to enhanced differentiation and mineralization.
CONCLUSIONS: The dural substitute membranes showed cytocompatibility, did not provoke an inflammatory response and maintained the stemness of hDPSCs better than MTA. Additionally, the set Histoacryl surgical adhesive demonstrated good biocompatibility. Taken together, these results highlight the potential use of dural substitutes in regenerative endodontic procedures as coronal barriers alternative to MTA to reduce the incidence of intracanal calcifications.