In Vitro Evaluation of ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, and MM-MTA on Human Alveolar Bone Marrow Stem Cells in Terms of Biocompatibility and Mineralization

• Published in: Journal of endodontics Vol. 41; no. 10; pp. 1646 - 1652
• Main Authors: Margunato, Suzan, DT, PhD, Taşlı, Pakize Neslihan, MSc, Aydın, Safa, MSc, Karapınar Kazandağ, Meriç, DT, PhD, Şahin, Fikrettin, PhD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.10.2015
• Subjects: Adolescent; Alkaline Phosphatase - metabolism; Aluminum Compounds - pharmacology; Aluminum Compounds - toxicity; Alveolar bone marrow; Biodentine; Bone Marrow Cells - drug effects; Bone Marrow Cells - enzymology; Calcium Compounds - pharmacology; Calcium Compounds - toxicity; Cell Survival - drug effects; Cells, Cultured; Dentistry; Drug Combinations; Endocrinology & Metabolism; Humans; mesenchymal stem cell; MM-MTA; osteogenesis; Oxides - pharmacology; Oxides - toxicity; ProRoot MTA; Root Canal Filling Materials - pharmacology; Root Canal Filling Materials - toxicity; Silicates - pharmacology; Silicates - toxicity; Stem Cells - drug effects; Stem Cells - enzymology; Biodentine; mesenchymal stem cell; ProRoot MTA; Alveolar bone marrow; MM-MTA; osteogenesis
• ISSN: 0099-2399; 1878-3554
• DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.05.012

Abstract Introduction Stem cell technology has been a great hope for the regeneration of cells of pulp-dentin complex and dental structures together with surrounding bone and periodontium. The main challenge in the regeneration process is a successful combination of stem cells and efficient inductors such as inductive biomaterials. In this regard, today, manufacturers propose novel tooth filling materials. The current study was aimed to compare the effect of ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fossés, France), and MM-MTA (Micro-Mega, Besançon Cedex, France) on the cell viability, hard tissue deposition capacity, and osteogenic differentiation of human bone marrow stem cells (hBMSCs) derived from mandibular bone. Methods Dental materials were packed into Teflon rings (Grover Corp, Milwaukee, WI) and placed on Transwell inserts (Corning, Corning, NY) to determine the toxicity of tooth filling materials by the 3-(4,5-dimethyl-thiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxy-methoxy-phenyl)-2-(4-sulfo-phenyl)-2H tetrazolium assay on days 1, 3, 7, and 14; 20% dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was used as a positive control for the toxicity assay. hBMSCs were characterized by their surface markers with mesenchymal stem cell antibodies. Teflon rings were cocultured with hBMSCs followed by the induction of osteogenic differentiation. The osteogenic differentiation of hBMSCs and hard tissue formation of the materials were evaluated by analyzing the messenger RNA expression levels of osteonectin, Runt-related transcription factor 2, and collagen type 1A by real-time polymerase chain reaction expression analysis, measurement of alkaline phosphatase activity, and visualization of calcium deposits by alizarin red staining. Results MTA, Biodentine, and MM-MTA did not exhibit a cytotoxic effect on hBMSCs after 14 days in culture. Even though all the materials significantly stimulate ( P  < .05) osteogenic differentiation of hBMSCs compared with the negative control, ProRoot MTA showed greater osteoinductivity than Biodentine or MM-MTA according to the messenger RNA expression, alkaline phosphatase, immunocytochemistry, and alizarin red staining data. Conclusions All of the dental materials used in this study show the osteogenic differentiation potential of hBMSCs. Therefore, newly introduced MM-MTA can also be used as a material of choice in routine dental treatment.