Abstract
The aim of this paper was to assess the differences in tissue response to implantation during 15, 30 and 45 days in the subcutaneous connective tissue of Wistar rats from three biomaterials: Angelus MTA®, Theracal LC®, and Angelus MTA® to which 25% bioglass G3 was added. Twenty-four Wistar rats were used, the materials were inserted into the rat’s dorsal area in silicone tubes 5 mm long by 1.5 mm diameter. Histological reaction was assessed at 15, 30, and 45 days after implantation. They were then stained with hematoxylin eosin and evaluated by two observers. Data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test and Mann–Whitney’s U test was used to determine the association between variables. Angelus MTA induced the formation of dystrophic calcifications twice as much as Theracal LC (p < 0.05). The addition of G3 did not affect the greater or lesser occurrence of calcifications (p > 0.05). Theracal LC and MTA plus G3 caused an inflammatory reaction, which was chronic at 15 days and decreased in intensity, almost disappearing after 45 days. Theracal LC, as well as Angelus MTA plus G3, were well tolerated when implanted in the subcutaneous connective tissue of rat. Histologically, no inconvenience was found for the use by direct contact of Theracal LC, and the mixture of MTA with 25% bioactive glass G3, in the tissue of Wistar rats.
Highlights
Endodontic microsurgery is often the last option when non-surgical retreatment fails, is unfeasible or unlikely to improve the initial endodontic treatment
The aim of this study was to compare the biocompatibility of Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Angelus® (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil), Theracal LC®, and MTA Angelus® with G3 bioactive glass particles in a known ratio when the materials were implanted into the subcutaneous connective tissue of Wistar rats
ReTshueltisntensity of the inflammatory reaction was evaluated with the number of inflammatorTyhceeilnlstefnosrittyheofmthiceroinsflcoapmicmfaiteoldryorfeaocbtsioernvwataiosnevaatl4u0a0te×dmwaigthnitfhiceantiuomn.bTehr eofdiennflsaitmydmecarteoarsyecsewllisthfotrhtehdeumraictiroonscoofpthicefiimeldploafnot.bTsheirsvdateicorneaaste4i0s0s×tatmisatigcnalilfiycsaitgionnif.icTahnet dinentusbitey idmepclraenatssews withitMh TthAe,oTf hthereaicmalpLlCan(tp. =T0h.0is01d)eacnredaisteisisalsstoatsiisgtniciafilclyanstigwniitfihcManTtAinGtu3b(ep i≤m0p.0la0n1)ts(FwigituhreM2TaAn(dpT=a0b.l0e024))., Theracal LC (p = 0.001) and it is significant with MTA-G3 (p ≤ 0.001) (Figure 2 and Table 2)
Summary
Endodontic microsurgery is often the last option when non-surgical retreatment fails, is unfeasible or unlikely to improve the initial endodontic treatment. Root-end filling materials in endodontic microsurgery have evolved over time. These materials have the drawback of suffering from corrosion, electrolysis, expansion and coloration. Microorganisms play an essential role in periapical disease [2], so the antibacterial properties of these materials are essential when assessing their suitability. The aim of these materials is to achieve an airtight seal after the resection of the apical root zone [3], sealing the communication between the periapical tissue and the root canal of the tooth. The four classic methods that have been used to study the biocompatibility of materials have been: the evaluation of biocompatibility, placement of subcutaneous implants, placement of intraosseous implants, and in vivo evaluation of the periradicular tissue reaction in human subjects [5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
