IADR Abstract Archives
Experimental Borosilicate Bioactive Glasses: Pulp Cells Behaviour and Mechanical Characterisation
Objectives: To assess the effect of two experimental phase-separated borosilicate (PSBS) one without alumina (PSBS8) and one containing alumina (PSBS16) on dental pulp cells; and to compare their mechanical properties to a conventional fluoroaluminosilicate glass (GIC).
Methods: The cytocompatibility assessment of the two borosilicate glasses was achieved on cultured primary human pulp cells (HDPs). Alamar blue assay was used to assess cell metabolic activity, and cell morphology was evaluated by confocal imaging. The bioactivity in stimulated body fluid was evaluated using SEM-EDX analysis. Vickers microhardness and flexural strength were assessed after incorporating the glass particles into the conventional GIC liquid. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by Post Hoc tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results: The two borosilicate glasses enhanced HDPs cells behavior. PSBS8 was more efficient than the PSBS16 and the GIC glasses regardless of contact type and time point. EDX analysis confirmed an initial Ca/P ratio (2.1 for 45S5K and 2.08 for PSBS8) after 3 weeks of immersion. After 42 days of maturation, the cement prepared using PSBS8 showed significantly higher Vickers hardness values (p=0.001) than that prepared using PSBS16 (HVN=47±7 vs 37 ±9). Regarding the flexural strength, after 24 hours of maturation PSBS8 exhibited a flexural strength of 14.2 MPa compared to 5.4 MPa for PSBS16 and 16.4 MPa for GIC. However, both borosilicate glasses demonstrated lower mechanical properties compared to the GIC glass.
Conclusions: The present in vitro results demonstrated that the experimental borosilicate bioactive glass without alumina enhanced pulp cells behaviour better than the tested conventional glass ionomer cement and the experimental borosilicate glass containing alumina. In the context of tissue preservation and minimally invasive dentistry, the experimental borosilicate glasses deserves to be further developed for a potential use as filler in the development of new bioactive materials for endodontic and/or restorative dentistry.
Methods: The cytocompatibility assessment of the two borosilicate glasses was achieved on cultured primary human pulp cells (HDPs). Alamar blue assay was used to assess cell metabolic activity, and cell morphology was evaluated by confocal imaging. The bioactivity in stimulated body fluid was evaluated using SEM-EDX analysis. Vickers microhardness and flexural strength were assessed after incorporating the glass particles into the conventional GIC liquid. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by Post Hoc tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results: The two borosilicate glasses enhanced HDPs cells behavior. PSBS8 was more efficient than the PSBS16 and the GIC glasses regardless of contact type and time point. EDX analysis confirmed an initial Ca/P ratio (2.1 for 45S5K and 2.08 for PSBS8) after 3 weeks of immersion. After 42 days of maturation, the cement prepared using PSBS8 showed significantly higher Vickers hardness values (p=0.001) than that prepared using PSBS16 (HVN=47±7 vs 37 ±9). Regarding the flexural strength, after 24 hours of maturation PSBS8 exhibited a flexural strength of 14.2 MPa compared to 5.4 MPa for PSBS16 and 16.4 MPa for GIC. However, both borosilicate glasses demonstrated lower mechanical properties compared to the GIC glass.
Conclusions: The present in vitro results demonstrated that the experimental borosilicate bioactive glass without alumina enhanced pulp cells behaviour better than the tested conventional glass ionomer cement and the experimental borosilicate glass containing alumina. In the context of tissue preservation and minimally invasive dentistry, the experimental borosilicate glasses deserves to be further developed for a potential use as filler in the development of new bioactive materials for endodontic and/or restorative dentistry.