scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Tissue Response of MTA and Portland Cement with Three Radiopacifying Agents: An Animal Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-25 ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 260 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. MARQUES ◽  
N. LOURENÇO NETO ◽  
A.P. FERNANDES ◽  
C. RODINI ◽  
M. HUNGARO DUARTE ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nádia Carolina Teixeira Marques ◽  
Natalino Lourenço Neto ◽  
Ana Paula Fernandes ◽  
Camila de Oliveira Rodini ◽  
Marco Antônio Hungaro Duarte ◽  
...  

The aim of this study was to evaluate the response of rat subcutaneous tissue to MTA Fillapex® (Angelus), an experimental root canal filling material based on Portland cement and propylene glycol (PCPG), and a zinc oxide, eugenol and iodoform (ZOEI) paste. These materials were placed in polyethylene tubes and implanted into the dorsal connective tissue of Wistar rats for 7 and 15 days. The specimens were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, and evaluated regarding inflammatory reaction parameters by optical microscopy. The intensity of inflammatory response against the sealers was analyzed by two blinded and previously calibrated examiners for all experimental periods (kappa=0.96). The histological evaluation showed that all materials caused a moderate inflammatory reaction at 7 days, which subsided with time. A greater inflammatory reaction was observed at 7 days in the tubes filled with ZOEI paste. Tubes filled with MTA Fillapex presented some giant cells, macrophages and lymphocytes after 7 days. At 15 days, the presence of fibroblasts and collagen fibers was observed indicating normal tissue healing. The tubes filled with PCPG showed similar results to those observed in MTA Fillapex. At 15 days, the inflammatory reaction was almost absent at the tissue, with several collagen fibers indicating normal tissue healing. Data were analyzed by the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test (α=0.05). Statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was found only between PCPG at 15 days and ZOEI at 7 days groups. No significant differences were observed among the other groups/periods (p>0.05). MTA Fillapex and Portland cement added with propylene glycol had greater tissue compatibility than the PCPG paste.


Author(s):  
Carlos Alberto Herrero de Morais ◽  
Norberti Bernardineli ◽  
Roberto B. Garcia ◽  
Marco A.H. Duarte ◽  
Danilo M.Z. Guerisoli

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Martínez Lalis ◽  
María Laura Esaín ◽  
Gabriel A. Kokubu ◽  
Julia Willis ◽  
Carolina Chaves ◽  
...  

The purpose of this study was compare the biocompatibility of modified Portland cement (CPM) and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) in a subcutaneous rat model. Twenty-four male Wistar rats were used. Three silicon tubes were placed on the dorsal subcutaneous tissue of each animal: one tube contained MTA, one tube contained CPM and the other was an empty tube. The rats were sacrificed in 3 groups of 8 animals at 7, 14 and 30 postoperative days, respectively. Tissue samples were fixed in 10% buffered formalin, embedded in paraffin, and serial sections were cut and stained with hematoxylin and eosin, Masson Trichrome and Luna's stain. At day 7, the empty tubes displayed a mild inflammatory infiltrate. In the CPM group, an inflammatory infiltrate was observed with some eosinophils and immature connective tissue. The MTA group showed a similar infiltrate without eosinophils and presence of abundant necrotic tissue and numerous multinucleate foreign body giant cells. At day 14, the chronic infiltrate with eosinophils persisted when in contact with CPM. In the MTA group, necrosis and distant giant cells could still be seen. At day 30, all 3 groups showed mature fibrous collagenous tissue. These findings indicate a different response to the materials evaluated in this study. Although, MTA and CPM induced a chronic inflammatory infiltrate, necrosis and multinucleated foreign body giant cells predominated in the MTA group, while in the CPM group numerous eosinophils were seen at all the observational periods.


Author(s):  
Dipti Bhagat ◽  
RaviKadur Sunder ◽  
ShashikiranNandihalli Devendrappa ◽  
Amit Vanka ◽  
Nidhi Choudaha

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document