The in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers (GuttaFlow2, AH Plus, ProRoot MTA and RealSeal) against E. feacalis, E.coli and C.albicans. METHODS: The antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers were assessed by both agar diffusion test (ADT) and direct contact test (DCT) in this study. In ADT, the results were reported as the diameter of the growth inhibition zone. Both fresh and 1-day-setting sealers were measured. In DCT, microorganisms in suspension were exposed to the sealers for 10, 30 and 60 min and the survival of microorganisms were determined after exposure at different time points(after mixing, 1 and 7 days). The number of colony-forming unit (CFU) was counted. The results were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey tests. RESULTS: Both ADT and DCT results showed that Guttaflow2 presented no effect against any tested microorganisms. In ADT, fresh RealSeal had the largest inhibition zone against all tested microbes, followed by AH Plus and ProRoot MTA. ProRoot MTA demonstrated inhibition zones against all the three test microbes after setting for 1 day, while the other three sealers showed no inhibition activity. In DCT, fresh AH Plus had the strongest antimicrobial effects against all the three tested microorganisms for every contact times, while its antimicrobial activity diminished significantly with time. Fresh RealSeal and ProRoot MTA also showed strong antimicrobial effect and still showed antimicrobial effect after 1-day-setting. The antibacterial effects of RealSeal against E. faecalis and antifungal effect of ProRoot MTA were observed after 7 days of setting. CONCLUSIONS: GuttaFlow2 had no antimicrobial activity. Freshly mixed RealSeal and AH Plus demonstrated strong antimicrobial effects. RealSeal showed antimicrobial effects after setting in DCT. ProRoot MTA showed high antimicrobial activity and exhibited anti-inflammation potentials after setting.

In vitro cytotoxicity of guttaflow 2 on human gingival fibroblasts.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxic effects of GuttaFlow 2 (Coltène Whaledent, GmBH+Co KG, Langenau, Switzerland) on human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs). METHODS: Samples of the test materials GuttaFlow 2, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), AH Plus (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), and RealSeal sealer (SybronEndo, Orange, CA) were fabricated in cylindrical nonreactive plastic tubes of 3-mm diameter and 2-mm height. Extracts of freshly mixed and set samples were prepared using the ratio of 0.5 cm(2)/mL, 1 cm(2)/mL, and 1.5 cm(2)/mL according to ISO 10993 series. The extracts were incubated with HGF cells for 24 and 72 hours. A cell counting kit-8 assay (Dojindo, Kumamoto, Japan) assay was used to examine cytotoxicity. The results were analyzed with the independent t test and 1-way analysis of variance test (P < .05). RESULTS: At all experimental conditions, the extracts of freshly mixed GuttaFlow 2 were nontoxic, whereas the extracts of freshly mixed and set AH Plus and RealSeal sealers were toxic to HGF cells (P < .05). The extracts of set GuttaFlow 2 were toxic at 72 hours (P < .05) and nontoxic at 24 hours. The extracts of freshly mixed MTA were nontoxic at both time points. For the extracts of set MTA, 1.5 cm(2)/mL was toxic at 72 hours and 1.5 cm(2)/mL and 1 cm(2)/mL were toxic at 24 hours (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Both GuttaFlow 2 and MTA evoked a less toxic response to HGF cells than AH Plus and RealSeal sealer.