Dpto. Odontología

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the compressive strength and the bulk porosity of a bidirectional (bFRC) and an experimental bidirectional spiral winding reinforced fiber composite (bswFRC). Cylindrical-shape specimens were prepared for each material group and processed for the evaluation of compressive strength after different storage conditions (dry, 1 and 3 months) in distilled water at 37 C. The specimens were also assessed for the degree of bulk porosity through X-ray tomography. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to determine the fracture mode after a compressive strength test. Data were statistically analyzed using Two-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). A significantly lower compressive strength was obtained in dry conditions, and after 1 month of water immersion, with the specimens created with bFRC compared to those made with bswFRC (p < 0.05). No significant difference (p > 0.05) was found between the two groups after 3 months of water immersion. However, the presence of water jeopardized significantly the compressive strength of bswFRC after water storage. The type of fracture was clearly different between the two groups; bswFRC showed a brutal fracture, whilst bFRC demonstrated a shear fracture. The bswFRC demonstrated higher pore volume density than bFRC. In conclusion, bswFRC is characterized by greater compressive strength compared to bFRC in dry conditions, but water-aging can significantly decrease the mechanical properties of such an innovative FRC. Therefore, both the novel bidirectional spiral winding reinforced fiber composites (bswFRC) and the bidirectional fiber reinforced composites (bFRC) might represent suitable materials for the production of post-and-core systems via CAD/CAM technology. These findings suggest that both FRC materials have the potential to strengthen the endodontically treated teeth.

The promotion of biologically based treatment strategies in restorative dentistry is of paramount importance, as invasive treatments should be avoided to maintain the tooth’s vitality. This study aimed to assess the biocompatibility of commercially available bioactive materials that can be used for dental pulp capping. The study was performed with a monocyte/macrophage peripheral blood SC cell line (ATCC CRL-9855) on the following six specific bioactive materials: ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Sirona), MTA Angelus (Angelus), Biodentine (Septodont), TheraCal LC (Bisco), ACTIVA BioACTIVE (Pulpdent) and Predicta Bioactive Bulk (Parkell). The cytotoxicity of the investigated agents was measured using a resazurin-based cell viability assay, while the genotoxicity was evaluated using an alkaline comet assay. Additionally, flow cytometry (FC) apoptosis detection was conducted with a FITC (fluorescein isothiocyanate) Annexin V Apoptosis Detection Kit I. FC cell-cycle arrest assessment was carried out with propidium iodide staining. The results of this study showed no significant cytotoxicity and genotoxicity (p > 0.05) in ProRoot MTA, MTA Angelus, Biodentine, ACTIVA BioACTIVE and Predicta Bioactive. Conversely, TheraCal LC presented a significant decrease (p < 0.001). In conclusion, due to excellent biocompatibility and low cytotoxicity, MTA, Biodentine, ACTIVA BioACTIVE and Predicta Bioactive may be suitable for pulp capping treatments. On the other hand, due to the high cytotoxicity of TheraCal LC, its use should be avoided in vital pulp therapies.

The evaluation of the porosities within the interface of root canals obturated with endodontics materials is extremely important for the long-term success of endodontic treatments. The aim of this study was to compare initial and long-term volume of pores (total, open, closed) and porosity (total, regional) of three bioactive endodontic sealers: GuttaFlow Bioseal, Total Fill BC Sealer, and Bio- Root RCS. Root canals were obturated with three “bioactive” sealers using the single-cone technique. The volume of open and closed pores and porosity were calculated using a micro-computed tomography (MCT) method. The measurements were performed after 7 days (initial) and after 6 months (long-term) of incubation. Statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05. The total volume of pores remained unchanged after the 6-month storage. GuttaFlow Bioseal exhibited significantly higher long-term volume in open pores than Total Fill BC Sealer. The total porosity in all the tested sealers presented no statistically significant change after the 6-month storage, except for BioRoot RCS. The total porosity values of this latter material significantly increased after long-term incubation, especially in the apical region. In conclusion, the use of bioactive sealers with excessive tendency to create porosities both in shorth- and long-term periods of storage may compromise the long-term success of endodontic treatments.