DIFFERENCES IN THE POTENTIAL MUTAGENICITY OF RESIN-, SILICONE-, AND BIOCERAMIC-BASED SEALERS ON LYMPHOCYTES: A PROTEIN EXPRESSION ANALYSIS
Keywords:Root canal sealers, Bioceramic, Protein expression, Lymphocyte, Mutagenicity, Resin, Silicone
Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the potential mutagenicity of resin-, silicone-, and bioceramic-based sealers on protein
expression in human lymphocytes. There has been limited research on resin-, silicone-, and bioceramic-based sealers effects on protein expression
Methods: Nine samples of each sealer were incubated in 2 mL human blood for 1, 3, and 7 days. Then, the isolated lymphocytes are observed for
protein separation by electrophoresis method. Profile of protein bands observed and data were analyzed statistically by Kruskal–Wallis and post hoc
Results: Although no statistically significant differences in protein bands were observed among the resin-, silicone-, and bioceramic-based sealers
(p=0.111), there was a statistically significant difference between the resin- and silicone-based sealers on the 1st day (p=0.046) and 3rd day (p=0.046)
and between the silicone- and bioceramic-based sealers on the 1st day (p=0.046). Thus, the present study shows that there were differences in the
potential mutagenicity on the 1st day; resin was potentially more mutagenic followed by bioceramic and silicone. On the 3rd and 7th days, bioceramic
was potentially more mutagenic followed by resin and silicone.
Conclusion: The manuscript describes the study in detail and concludes that resin was potentially more mutagenic followed by bioceramic- and
story. Eur J Gen Dent 2013;2:199-213.
2. Ingle J, Bakland LK, Baumgartner JC. Endodontics. 6th ed. Hamilton,
Ontario: BC Decker Inc; 2008.
3. Ghanaati S, Willershausen I, Barbeck M, Unger RE, Joergens M,
Sader RA, et al. Tissue reaction to sealing materials: Different view at
biocompatibility. Eur J Med Res 2010;15:483-92.
4. Gutmann JL. Apical termination of root canal procedures---ambiguity
or disambiguation? Evid Based Endod 2016;1:4.
5. Singh H, Markan S, Kaur M, Gupta G. Endodontic sealers: Current
concepts and comparative analysis. Dent Open J 2015;2:32-7.
6. Poggio C, Arciola CR, Dagna A, Colombo M, Bianchi S, Visai L, et al.
Solubility of root canal sealers: A comparative study. Int J Artif Organs
7. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM. Biocompatibility and tissue reaction
to biomaterials. In: Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials. 13th ed.
Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2012. p. 110-3.
8. Alberts B, Bray D, Hopkin K, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, et al.
Essential Cell Biology. 4th ed. New York: Garlans Science; 2014.
9. Alberts B, Jonson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P. Molecular
Biology of the Cell. 6th ed. New York: Garland Science; 2015.
10. Suharsono, Tjahtoleksono A, Jusuf M, Hartana A. Struktur Dan
Ekspresi Gen. Bogor. Available from : http://www.web.ipb.ac.id/~tpb/
11. Mileti? I, Juki? S, Ani? I, Zeljezi? D, Garaj-Vrhovac V, Osmak M, et al.
Examination of cytotoxicity and mutagenicity of AH26 and AH plus
sealers. Int Endod J 2003;36:330-5.
12. Sousa CJ, Montes CR, Pascon EA, Loyola AM, Versiani MA.
Comparison of the intraosseous biocompatibility of AH plus, endoREZ,
and epiphany root canal sealers. J Endod 2006;32:656-62.
13. Bouillaguet S, Wataha JC, Tay FR, Brackett MG, Lockwood PE.
Initial in vitro biological response to contemporary endodontic sealers.
J Endod 2006;32:989-92.
14. Brzovic V, Miletic I, Zeljezic D, Mladinic M, Kasuba V, Ramic S, et al.
In vitro genotoxicity of root canal sealers. Int Endod J 2009;42:253-63.
15. Bueno CR, Valentim D, Marques VA, Gomes-Filho JE, Cintra LT,
Jacinto RC, et al. Biocompatibility and biomineralization assessment
of bioceramic, epoxy, and calcium hydroxide-based sealers. Braz Oral
16. Midy V, Dard M, Hollande E. Evaluation of the effect of three calcium
phosphate powders on osteoblast cells. J Mater Sci Mater Med
17. Accardo C, Himel VT, Lallier TE. A novel guttaFlow sealer supports
cell survival and attachment. J Endod 2014;40:231-4.
18. Schweikl H, Schmalz G, Stimmelmayr H, Bey B. Mutagenicity of AH26
in an in vitro mammalian cell mutation assay. J Endod 1995;21:407-10.
19. Ersev H, Schmalz G, Bayirli G, Schweikl H. Cytotoxic and mutagenic
potencies of various root canal filling materials in eukaryotic and
prokaryotic cells in vitro. J Endod 1999;25:359-63.
20. Schweikl H, Schmalz G. The induction of micronuclei in V79 cells by
the root canal filling material AH plus. Biomaterials 2000;21:939-44.
21. Leonardo MR, Bezerra da Silva LA, Filho MT, Santana da Silva R.
Release of formaldehyde by 4 endodontic sealers. Oral Surg Oral Med
Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88:221-5.
22. Van Landuyt KL, Geebelen B, Shehata M, Furche SL, Durner J, Van
Meerbeek B, et al. No evidence for DNA double-strand breaks caused
by endodontic sealers. J Endod 2012;38:636-41.
23. Geurtsen W, Leyhausen G. Biological aspects of root canal filling
materials-histocompatibility,cytotoxicity, and mutagenicity. Clin Oral
24. Orrenius S, Zhivotovsky B, Nicotera P. Regulation of cell death: The
calcium-apoptosis link. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2003;4:552-65.
25. Pool-Zobel BL, Dornacher I, Lambertz R, Knoll M, Seitz HK. Genetic
damage and repair in human rectal cells for biomonitoring: Sex
differences, effects of alcohol exposure, and susceptibilities in comparison
to peripheral blood lymphocytes. Mutat Res 2004;551:127-34.