Gingival tissue inflammatory response following treatment with chemical retraction agents in Beagle dogs

Abstract

A normal finding of a clinically healthy gingiva is minimal inflammatory infiltration of subepithelial connective tissue which increases after exposure of gingiva to retraction agents. The study investigates and compares the inflammatory potential of four retraction agents on the gingival connective tissue. The gingiva of Beaagle dogs was exposed for 10 minutes to chemical agents. Byopsies were taken one hour, 24 hours and 7 days after treatment. Morphometric analysis of treated and control gingiva was performed on parasagittal tissue sections to compare the gingival tissue inflammatory potential of four retraction chemicals. Retraction agents produced no significant effect on connective tissue under the junctional epithelium. On the other hand the connective tissue under sulcular epithelium exhibits extensive inflammatory infiltration. The most aggressive retraction agent being Racestyptine and the least Visine, which therefore could be recommended for clinical practice.

Haemostatic agents used in periradicular surgery: an experimental study of their efficacy and tissue reactions

“…1993). In an experimental study in eight beagle dogs evaluating four different retraction agents, racestyptine containing 25% aluminium chloride showed the most aggressive inflammatory infiltrate in gingival connective tissue (Kopac et al. 2002).…”

The Effect of Trichloracetic Acid as a Hemostatic and Etching Agent on the Morphological Characteristics and Shear Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Enamel

“…Additionally, electrosurgery and laser beams are also currently used to prevent cavity contamination with blood and sulcular fluids. [6][7][8] The use of epinephrine is limited, because it causes hypertension and tachycardia. 4 Iron compounds can result in restoration margin discoloration in tooth-colored restorations if not completely removed with irrigation.…”

The rabbit gingival tissue response to retraction liquids and tetrahydrozoline

“…An in vitro study by Kopa et al 19,20 found significantly lower damage of cell cultures treated by tetrahydrozoline compared to aluminum chloride. Retraction agents represent acidic solutions with pH values from 0.8 to 3, the parameter which is considered to be major cause of periodontal tissue damage 21 .…”

“…Retraction agents represent acidic solutions with pH values from 0.8 to 3, the parameter which is considered to be major cause of periodontal tissue damage 21 . Conversely, pH value of tetrahydrozoline is 5.6, so it is considered biologically acceptable from that point of view 20 . An in vitro study of Nowakowska et al 22 showed high cell viability values of human gingival fibroblasts after treatment with tetrahydrozoline-HCl based gels.…”