Evaluation of biocompatibility of bioceramic sealers with periapical tissues: an experimental study in vivo

INTRODUCTION. In the view of significant changes in the pharmacotherapy of dental diseases, bioceramic sealers, which have recently been used for root canal obturation and differ significantly in composition from the widely used epoxy sealers, are of scientific and practical interest. AIM. To develop a domestic calcium-silicate bioceramic material for endodontic treatment and to evaluate the biocompatibility of periapical tooth tissues in a comparative aspect with various sealers under experimental conditions on laboratory animals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Laboratory studies were conducted on 12 male chinchilla rabbits weighing 3.5±0.1 kg. After the material was removed into the periodontal tissues of the animals on the 7th and 30th days of the experiment, fragments of the jaws with an experimental incisor were obtained, which were studied histologically. The study determined the biocompatibility of modern sealers: epoxy AH Plus (Dentsply Sirona, USA) and bioceramic sealers: TotalFill BC Sealer (FKG, Switzerland) and a new developed bioceramic composition Bioceramin (VladMiVa).
RESULTS. The biocompatibility of sealers had a statistically significant difference between the study groups during the 7-day observation period (p ≤ 0.01). In the epoxy sealer group, reactive changes in the periapical tissues of the teeth were present throughout the observation period. At the same time, in the bioceramic sealer groups, proliferation of loose highly cellular fibrous tissue with rare small mononuclear inflammatory infiltrates was detected during the 7-day observation period, and reactive changes with periosteal osteogenesis in 30 days after the start of the experiment.
CONCLUSIONS. According to the results of the study, the calcium-silicate material of foreign manufacture and the newly developed bioceramic calcium-silicate sealer of domestic manufacture showed high biocompatibility with periodontal tissues of laboratory animals’ teeth (p<0.05). At the same time, toxicity of the epoxy sealer on periodontal tissues was revealed in 7- and 30-day observation periods.

1. Huang D., Wang X., Liang J., Ling J., Bian Z., Yu Q. et al. Expert consensus on difficulty assessment of endodontic therapy. Int J Oral Sci. 2024;16:22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-024-00285-0

2. Krikheli N.I., Pustovoit E.V., Zhuravleva E.G., Arakelyan I.R., Rybalkina E.A. Bioceramic sealers. Review of physical, chemical, and biological properties. Russian Journal of Stomatology. 2020;13(4):32–36. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/rosstomat20201304132

3. Rekha R., Kavitha R., Venkitachalam R., Prabath S.V., Deepthy S., Krishnan V. Comparison of the sealing ability of bioceramic sealer against epoxy resin based sealer: A systematic review & meta-analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2023;13(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.10.006

4. Wang Z., Shen Y., Haapasalo M. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm properties of bioceramic materials in endodontics. Materials. 2021;14(24):7594. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14247594

5. Szczurko G., Pawińska M., Łuczaj-Cepowicz E., Kierklo A., Marczuk-Kolada G., Hołownia A. Effect of root canal sealers on human periodontal ligament fibroblast viability: ex vivo study. Odontology. 2018;106(3):245–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-017-0329-y

6. Mitronin A.V., Ostanina D.A., Mitronin Yu.A. Bioceramics in modern endodontics. Endodontics Today. 2021;19(3):166–170. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.36377/1683-2981-2021-19-3-166-170

7. Rodríguez-Lozano F.J., García-Bernal D., OñateSánchez R.E., Ortolani-Seltenerich P.S., Forner L., Moraleda J.M. Evaluation of cytocompatibility of calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers and their effects on the biological responses of mesenchymal dental stem cells. Int Endod J. 2017;50(1):67–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12596

8. Li J., Chen L., Zeng C., Liu Y., Gong Q., Jiang H. Clinical outcome of bioceramic sealer iRoot SP extrusion in root canal treatment: a retrospective analysis. Head Face Med. 2022;18(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-022-00332-3

9. Martorano A.S., Messias N.S., Bighetti-Trevisan R.L., de Oliveira P.T., de Castro Raucci L.M.S., Raucci Neto W. In vitro inflammatory modulation of bioceramic endodontic sealer in macrophages stimulated by bacterial lipopolysaccharide. Int Endod J. 2023;56(2):213–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13858

10. Jung S., Sielker S., Hanisch M.R., Libricht V., Schäfer E., Dammaschke T. Cytotoxic effects of four different root canal sealers on human osteoblasts. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(3):e0194467. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194467

11. Collado-González M., García-Bernal D., Oñate-Sánchez R.E., Ortolani-Seltenerich P.S., Lozano A., Forner L., Llena C, Rodríguez-Lozano FJ. Biocompatibility of three new calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers on human periodontal ligament stem cells. Int Endod J. 2017;50(9):875–884. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12703

12. Zhou H.-M., Du T.-F., Shen Y., Wang Z.-J., Zheng Y.-F., Haapasalo M. In vitro cytotoxicity of calcium silicate-containing endodontic sealers. J Endod. 2015;41(1):56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.012

13. Kwak S.W., Koo J., Song M., Jang I.H., Gambarini G., Kim H.C. Physicochemical properties and biocompatibility of various bioceramic root canal sealers: in vitro study. J Endod. 2023;49(7):871–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2023.05.013

14. Santos J.M., Pereira S., Sequeira D.B., Messias A.L., Martins J.B., Cunha H. et al. Biocompatibility of a bioceramic silicone-based sealer in subcutaneous tissue. J Oral Sci. 2019;61(1):171–177. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.18-0145