medigraphic.com
ISSN 1870-199X (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

2016, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odont Mex 2016; 20 (3)

Inflammatory response of Bioceramic material to dentin tube implantation in rats’ subcutaneous tissue

Broon NJ, Martínez MPA, Ramírez MGL, Tinajero MC, Lagunas ÁLH, Bramante CM

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 174-178
PDF size: 328.57 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The aim of the present article was to assess inflammatory response caused by implantation of Bioceramic material in rats’ subcutaneous tissue. Nine male Wistar rats were used (Rattus Norvegicus) to which four dentin tubes filled with Bioceramic sealing cement material and one empty tube (control group) were implanted. Results were analyzed in three time periods (96 hours, 10 and 21 days). Animals were sacrificed by anesthetic overdose. Obtained samples were processed by hematoxylin and eosin staining in order to be analyzed with microscope. Results after 96 hours revealed moderate inflammation in 75% of all cases and severe inflammation in 25% of all cases. Ten days later, inflammation decreased from moderate (67%) to mild (25%). At the final period of 21 days, moderate to mild inflammation was observed (50%). It was concluded that there was presence of moderate to severe inflammation at initial periods which decreased to mild inflammation at the final period. «Bioceramic» brand material exhibits acceptable biological response in rats’ subcutaneous tissues.


REFERENCES

  1. De-Deus G, Canabarro A, Alves G, Linhares A, Senne MI, Granjeiro JM. Optimal cytocompatibility of a bioceramic nanoparticulate cement in primary human mesenchymal cells. J Endod. 2009; 35 (10): 1387-1390.

  2. Koch K, Brave D. The increased use of bioceramics in endodontics. Dentaltown. 2009: 33-43.

  3. Koch K, Brave D. Bioceramic technology: the game changer in endodontics. Endodontic Practice. 2009; 2: 13-17.

  4. Nasseh AA. Therise of bioceramics. Endodontic practice. 2009: 21-25.

  5. Modareszadeh MR, Di Fiore PM, Tipton DA, Salamat N. Cytotoxicity and alkalinephosphataseactivityevaluation of endosequencerootrepair material. J Endod. 2012; 38: 1101-1105.

  6. Zhang H, Shen Y, Ruse ND, Haapasalo M. Antibacterial activity of endodontics ealers by modified direct contact test against Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2009; 35: 1051-1055.

  7. Zhang W, Li Z, Peng B. Ex vivo cytotoxicity of a new calcium-silicate-based canal filling material. Int Endod J. 2010; 43: 769-774.

  8. Zoufan K, Jiang J, Komabayashi T, Wang YH, Safavi KE, Zhu Q. Cytotoxicity evaluation of Gutta Flow and Endo Sequence BC sealers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 112: 657-661.

  9. Loushine BA, Bryan TE, Looney SW, Gillen BM, Loushine RJ, Weller RN et al. Setting properties and cytotoxicity evaluation of a premixed bioceramic root canal sealer. J Endod. 2011; 37: 673-677.

  10. Candeiro GT, Correia FC, Duarte MA, Ribeiro-Siqueira DC, Gavini G. Evaluation of radiopacity, pH, release of calciumions, and flow of a bioceramicroot canal sealer. J Endod. 2012; 38: 842-845.

  11. Han L, Okiji T. Bioactivity evaluation of three calcium silicate-based endodontic materials. Int Endod J. 2013; 46: 808-814.

  12. Charland T, Hartwell GR, Hirschberg C, Patel R. An evaluation of setting time of mineral trioxide aggregate and Endo Sequence root Repair material in the presence of human blood and minimal essential media. J Endod. 2013; 39: 1071-1072.

  13. Stanley JW. Recommended standard practicesforbiologicalevaluation of dental materials. Int Endod J. 1980; 30: 140-188.

  14. Langeland K, Guttuso J, Langeland LK, Tobon G. Methods in the study of biologic responses to endodontic materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1969; 27: 522-542.

  15. Santos TA, Pérez CJO, Juárez BN, Martínez CLE. Biocompatibilidad del MTA-Angelus, cemento Portland blanco y super EBA adicionado con cemento Portland blanco implantados en tejido subcutáneo de ratas. Endodoncia. 2011; 29: 126-130.

  16. Téllez PJA, Juárez BN, Pérez CJO, Andaracua GS. Respuesta inflamatoria de los cementos selladores: MTAFillapex, Adseal y Roth en tejido subcutáneo de ratas. Endodoncia Actual. 2015; 10: 34-39.

  17. Arambula NML, Juarez BN, Navarrete RJJA, Bramante CM, Bramante AS. Reação do tecidosubcutâneo de rato à implantação do MTA branco e Ultrapexcom e semprópolis. Full Dent Sci. 2011; 2: 152-156.

  18. Chegüe VN, Juárez BN, Martínez CLE, Manzano CJM, Moreno CEN, Cervantes AF. Biocompatibilidad del MTA-Angelus® y cemento Portland blanco aditivado con cloruro de calcio y clorhexidina en tejido subcutáneo de ratas. Endodoncia. 2010; 28: 7-11.

  19. Ma J, Shen Y, Stojicic S, Haapasalo M. Biocompatibility of two novel root repair materials. J Endod. 2011; 37: 793-798.

  20. De Rossi A, Silva LA, Gatón-Hernández P, Sousa-Neto MD, Nelson-Filho P, Silva RA et al. Comparison of pulpal responses to pulpotomy and pulpcapping with biodentine and mineral trioxide aggregate in dogs. J Endod. 2014; 40 (9): 1362-1369.

  21. Mori GG, Teixeira LM, de Oliveira DL, Jacomini LM, da Silva SR. Biocompatibility evaluation of biodentine in subcutaneous tissue of rats. J Endod. 2014; 40: 1485-1488.

  22. Liu S, Wang S, Dong Y. Evaluation of a bioceramic as a pulpcappingagent in vitro and in vivo. J Endod. 2015; 41: 652-657.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com