Abstract

ObjectiveThis study tested rat connective tissue response to RealSeal, RealSeal primer or AH Plus after 7, 15, 30, 60 and 90 days of implantation.Material and methodsThirty Wistar rats had subcutaneous sockets created on their back and received four implants each of polyethylene tubes containing one of the materials tested according to the groups: AH (AH Plus Sealer); RS (RealSeal Sealer); RP (RealSeal Primer); CG (control group – empty tube). After histological processing, sections were analyzed to identify the presence of neutrophils, lymphocytes and plasma cells, eosinophils, macrophages and giant cells, as well as fibrous capsule and abscesses, by an examiner using light microscope. Kruskal- Wallis and multiple-comparisons test were used for statistical analysis. Significance level was set at 5%.ResultsLymphoplasmacytic infiltrate scores significantly higher than those of the control group were observed at 14 and 60 days in AH group, and at 90 days in RS group (p<0.05). There were no differences in terms of presence of macrophages, giant cells, eosinophils, neutrophils or fibrosis. AH Plus group scored higher for abscesses at 7 days than after any other period (p=0.031). RP group scored higher for lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate at 14 days than at 90 days (p=0.04).ConclusionThe main contribution of this study was to demonstrate that issues involved with tissue tolerance of a Resilon-containing sealer, RealSeal Sealer, cannot be attributed to its primer content.

Highlights

  • The implantation of materials in subcutaneous tissues of rats has been used as a method to study biocompatibility4,11,16

  • To test the hypothesis that RealSeal and its primer are biocompatible, this study evaluated tissue response to AH Plus, RealSeal or RealSeal primer in polyethylene tubes implanted in subcutaneous connective tissue of rats for 7, 15, 30, 60 and 90 days

  • Comparing the results for each material after different experimental periods, no significant differences were observed in relation to the presence of macrophages and giant cells, eosinophils, QHXWURSKLOV RU ¿EURVLV S! $+ JURXS VFRUHG higher for abscesses at 7 days than after any other period (p=0.031)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The implantation of materials in subcutaneous tissues of rats has been used as a method to study biocompatibility. The material under study may be placed in dentin, silicone6,16,17 7HÀRQ7,11 or polyethylene tubes. When animal testing is applied, material implant in polyethylene tubes has been described as gold standard. Figueiredo, et al. (2001) did not observe tissue reaction differences compared with sealer sub-mucous injection, but polyethylene tubes helped control the amount of sealer in contact with the tissues. Ozdemir and Ungor (2007) tested 5HVLORQ PDUNHWHG DV They have not tested the primer, which is potentially an irritant to the tissues

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (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