Biological tissue response to a new formulation of a silicone based endodontic sealer
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2016 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10183/152647 |
Resumo: | Satisfactory biological behavior is a necessary requirement for clinical application of endodontic materials. In this study, the connective tissue responses to silicone (GuttaFlow 2), epoxy resin (AH Plus) and zinc oxide and eugenol (Endofill) based sealers were compared. Twelve Wistar rats had polyethylene tubes (four per animal) containing one of the tested sealers and empty tubes (negative control) implanted in their subcutaneous tissue. The tubes were randomly placed 2 cm from the spine and at least 2 cm apart from one another. Tissue samples with implants were processed for histological analysis after 7 or 60 days (n=6 animals per period). Inflammatory cells, fibrous condensation and abscess were scored according to their intensity. Friedman, followed by Dunn’s post hoc, was used to compare sealers. Differences between the two experimental periods were verified using Mann-Witney U test (p<0.05). At 7 days, most of the histological parameters showed no significant differences amongst groups. Endofill group scored higher than the others for giant cells (o<0.05) and promoted a greater number of samples presenting abscess formation. GuttaFlow 2 tended to show a less intense inflammatory infiltrate compared to the other materials. At 60 days, there were no significant differences between groups in most of the histological parameters evaluated. However, it was observed that Endofill scored higher for macrophages (p<0.05) compared to the control group, and GuttaFlow 2 tended to present lower scores than the others for neutrophils and abscess. GuttaFlow 2 showed proper biological behavior and should be considered adequate for clinical practice. |
id |
UFRGS-2_f5d8d3081080f072b686e10dafb99c6c |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/152647 |
network_acronym_str |
UFRGS-2 |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Baldasso, Flávia Emi RazeraKopper, Patrícia Maria PoliMorgental, Renata DornellesSteier, LiviuFigueiredo, Jose Antonio Poli deScarparo, Roberta Kochenborger2017-02-15T02:27:12Z20160103-6440http://hdl.handle.net/10183/152647001011696Satisfactory biological behavior is a necessary requirement for clinical application of endodontic materials. In this study, the connective tissue responses to silicone (GuttaFlow 2), epoxy resin (AH Plus) and zinc oxide and eugenol (Endofill) based sealers were compared. Twelve Wistar rats had polyethylene tubes (four per animal) containing one of the tested sealers and empty tubes (negative control) implanted in their subcutaneous tissue. The tubes were randomly placed 2 cm from the spine and at least 2 cm apart from one another. Tissue samples with implants were processed for histological analysis after 7 or 60 days (n=6 animals per period). Inflammatory cells, fibrous condensation and abscess were scored according to their intensity. Friedman, followed by Dunn’s post hoc, was used to compare sealers. Differences between the two experimental periods were verified using Mann-Witney U test (p<0.05). At 7 days, most of the histological parameters showed no significant differences amongst groups. Endofill group scored higher than the others for giant cells (o<0.05) and promoted a greater number of samples presenting abscess formation. GuttaFlow 2 tended to show a less intense inflammatory infiltrate compared to the other materials. At 60 days, there were no significant differences between groups in most of the histological parameters evaluated. However, it was observed that Endofill scored higher for macrophages (p<0.05) compared to the control group, and GuttaFlow 2 tended to present lower scores than the others for neutrophils and abscess. GuttaFlow 2 showed proper biological behavior and should be considered adequate for clinical practice.application/pdfengBrazilian dental journal. Ribeirão Preto. Vol. 27, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 2016), p. 657-663EndodontiaCanais radiculares : TratamentoGuta-perchaMateriais odontológicosGuttaFlow 2Tissue compatibilityRoot canal fillingEndodontic sealersBiological tissue response to a new formulation of a silicone based endodontic sealerinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/otherinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGSinstname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGSORIGINAL001011696.pdf001011696.pdfTexto completo (inglês)application/pdf2666410http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/152647/1/001011696.pdf69548d83d46b13707b8389399aaace91MD51TEXT001011696.pdf.txt001011696.pdf.txtExtracted Texttext/plain26267http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/152647/2/001011696.pdf.txtb084c68b84a3a2853e883c5786e7bd58MD5210183/1526472022-02-22 05:09:39.320366oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/152647Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://lume.ufrgs.br/oai/requestopendoar:2022-02-22T08:09:39Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false |
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Biological tissue response to a new formulation of a silicone based endodontic sealer |
title |
Biological tissue response to a new formulation of a silicone based endodontic sealer |
spellingShingle |
Biological tissue response to a new formulation of a silicone based endodontic sealer Baldasso, Flávia Emi Razera Endodontia Canais radiculares : Tratamento Guta-percha Materiais odontológicos GuttaFlow 2 Tissue compatibility Root canal filling Endodontic sealers |
title_short |
Biological tissue response to a new formulation of a silicone based endodontic sealer |
title_full |
Biological tissue response to a new formulation of a silicone based endodontic sealer |
title_fullStr |
Biological tissue response to a new formulation of a silicone based endodontic sealer |
title_full_unstemmed |
Biological tissue response to a new formulation of a silicone based endodontic sealer |
title_sort |
Biological tissue response to a new formulation of a silicone based endodontic sealer |
author |
Baldasso, Flávia Emi Razera |
author_facet |
Baldasso, Flávia Emi Razera Kopper, Patrícia Maria Poli Morgental, Renata Dornelles Steier, Liviu Figueiredo, Jose Antonio Poli de Scarparo, Roberta Kochenborger |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Kopper, Patrícia Maria Poli Morgental, Renata Dornelles Steier, Liviu Figueiredo, Jose Antonio Poli de Scarparo, Roberta Kochenborger |
author2_role |
author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Baldasso, Flávia Emi Razera Kopper, Patrícia Maria Poli Morgental, Renata Dornelles Steier, Liviu Figueiredo, Jose Antonio Poli de Scarparo, Roberta Kochenborger |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Endodontia Canais radiculares : Tratamento Guta-percha Materiais odontológicos |
topic |
Endodontia Canais radiculares : Tratamento Guta-percha Materiais odontológicos GuttaFlow 2 Tissue compatibility Root canal filling Endodontic sealers |
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv |
GuttaFlow 2 Tissue compatibility Root canal filling Endodontic sealers |
description |
Satisfactory biological behavior is a necessary requirement for clinical application of endodontic materials. In this study, the connective tissue responses to silicone (GuttaFlow 2), epoxy resin (AH Plus) and zinc oxide and eugenol (Endofill) based sealers were compared. Twelve Wistar rats had polyethylene tubes (four per animal) containing one of the tested sealers and empty tubes (negative control) implanted in their subcutaneous tissue. The tubes were randomly placed 2 cm from the spine and at least 2 cm apart from one another. Tissue samples with implants were processed for histological analysis after 7 or 60 days (n=6 animals per period). Inflammatory cells, fibrous condensation and abscess were scored according to their intensity. Friedman, followed by Dunn’s post hoc, was used to compare sealers. Differences between the two experimental periods were verified using Mann-Witney U test (p<0.05). At 7 days, most of the histological parameters showed no significant differences amongst groups. Endofill group scored higher than the others for giant cells (o<0.05) and promoted a greater number of samples presenting abscess formation. GuttaFlow 2 tended to show a less intense inflammatory infiltrate compared to the other materials. At 60 days, there were no significant differences between groups in most of the histological parameters evaluated. However, it was observed that Endofill scored higher for macrophages (p<0.05) compared to the control group, and GuttaFlow 2 tended to present lower scores than the others for neutrophils and abscess. GuttaFlow 2 showed proper biological behavior and should be considered adequate for clinical practice. |
publishDate |
2016 |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2016 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2017-02-15T02:27:12Z |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/other |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/152647 |
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
0103-6440 |
dc.identifier.nrb.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
001011696 |
identifier_str_mv |
0103-6440 001011696 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/152647 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian dental journal. Ribeirão Preto. Vol. 27, no. 6 (Nov./Dec. 2016), p. 657-663 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGS instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) instacron:UFRGS |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
instacron_str |
UFRGS |
institution |
UFRGS |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/152647/1/001011696.pdf http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/152647/2/001011696.pdf.txt |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
69548d83d46b13707b8389399aaace91 b084c68b84a3a2853e883c5786e7bd58 |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1801224913768415232 |