Biocompatibility of a new epoxy resin-based root canal sealer in subcutaneous tissue of rat

Abstract

Objective:The objective was to evaluate the subcutaneous biocompatibility of two root canal sealers.Materials and Methods:Thirty female rats were distributed into two groups of 15 animals. Each received subcutaneous dorsal implants: Silicone tubes filled with AH Plus or Obtuseal. After the 11th, 14th, and 45th days, tissues were collected for biopsy and fixed and processed for histologic evaluation. Observations of the cellular inflammatory components, such as lymphocytes and macrophages, were made. The data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Connover tests (P < 0.05).Results:By the 7th day, lymphocyte infiltration increased in both groups (P = 0.0104). However, macrophage infiltration increased only in the AH Plus group (P = 0.0011). By the 14th and 45th days, lymphocyte and macrophage infiltrations were reduced. At the end of the experimental period, no statistically significant differences were found between the AH Plus group and the Obtuseal group (P > 0.05).Conclusion:After 45 days, Obtuseal yielded a satisfactory tissue reaction; it was biocompatible when tested in subcutaneous rat tissue. On the basis of the obtained results, it was concluded that Obtuseal root canal sealer caused a satisfactory tissue reaction as AH plus, because it was biocompatible when tested in the subcutaneous tissue of rats.

Assessment of the biocompatibility of mineral trioxide aggregate, bioaggregate, and biodentine in the subcutaneous tissue of rats

“…[13] Using this method, the histological response of biological tissue to the dental materials over time can be examined and compared. [17] At sites of acute inflammation where the irritant is cleared, and the process is resolved, macrophages eventually die or wander off into lymphatics. In contrast, the accumulation of macrophages in chronic inflammation is permanent, and macrophages can proliferate.…”

Sealing ability in vitro study and biocompatibility in vivo animal study of different bioceramic based sealers

“…CeraSeal RCS also showed rapid recovery and mild inflammation to the moderate response, while ZOE RCS still exhibited greater inflammation than controls. When the ZOE sealer comes into contact with the tissue, it generates a strong inflammatory reaction (Simsek et al, 2015 ). There were statistically significant differences (0.000) between the study groups as shown in Table A1 .…”

“…This biocompatibility refers to the ability to elicit an appropriate host response in a specific application; that is, it does not cause an adverse reaction when it comes into contact with the tissue, which can be determined by looking for cell infiltration or vascular changes, as well as determining the intensity of the inflammatory reaction (Ricucci & Langeland, 1998 ; Santos et al, 2019 ). The test sealers are implanted via surgery in these studies, and the body's response to tissue injury begins with inflammation and progresses via wound healing mechanisms, (Cosme‐Silva et al, 2019 ; Pinheiro et al, 2018 ; Simsek et al, 2015 ; Tyagi et al, 2013 ). If a normal healing process is followed, the implanted substance can be considered biocompatible (Cosme‐Silva et al, 2019 ; Ricucci & Langeland, 1998 ).…”

Positive and negative properties of four endodontic sealant groups: a systematic review

“…Силеры на основе эпоксидной смолы являются достаточно цитотоксичными, что связывают с основным компонентом данных материалов -эпоксидными полимерами. Однако их токсичность уменьшается со временем, и уже через 1-2 недели корневая пломба становится безопасной для окружающих тканей [8][9][10].…”