In vivo evaluation of the biocompatibility of three current bonding agents

Abstract

summary The aim of this in vivo study was to evaluate the biocompatibility of three current bonding agents and calcium hydroxide cement. Sixty polyethylene tubes filled with the following materials: Group 1: Prime & Bond NT (PB – Dentsply, US; Group 2: Bond 1 (BO – Jeneric/Pentron, US); Group 3: Optibond Solo (OP – Kerr, US); and Group 4 (control): calcium hydroxide cement – Dycal (CH – Dentsply, US) were implanted into the connective tissue of 30 rats. After 15, 30 and 60 days, the implants were excised and the animals sacrificed. The biopsies were immersed in Karnovsky (pH, 7.2) fixative solution for 48 hours, and processed using routine histological technique. Six‐micron‐thick sections were cut and stained with hematoxilin and eosin and Masson's trichome technique. Microscopic evaluation was used to compare the connective tissue reactions caused by the experimental and control materials adjacent to the tube opening. At 15 days, the experimental and control materials triggered a moderate to intense inflammatory response which gave rise to a thick capsule adjacent to the tube opening. With time, the inflammatory reaction decreased. At 60 days, the connective tissue adjacent to the bonding agents exhibited a persistent inflammatory response mediated by macrophages and giant cells which were engulfing displaced resin components. On the other hand, for the control group (calcium hydroxide) no inflammatory response associated with a thin capsule adjacent to the material was observed even at the 30‐day period. The hard‐setting calcium hydroxide cement allowed complete healing and was considered more biocompatible than the bonding agents.

Biocompatibility of Resin-based Dental Materials

“…Several studies have evaluated in vivo biocompatibility of different dental materials by implantation techniques [114,115,116,117,118,119]. …”

Development of experimental HEMA-free three-step adhesive system

“…24,25 Moreover, in uncured state, HEMA quickly absorbs water from dentin compromising the degree conversion. 26 Consequently a poor quality polymer network with weak mechanical properties will be formed.…”

Long-term follow-up of composite resin restorations with self-etching adhesives

“…1,2 However, studies on the long-term clinical performances of protective liners or bases are lacking, 2,12 and there are currently very few in vivo references for the biocompatibilities of different dentin-bonding systems. 13,14 Initially, we carried out an assessment of composite resin restorations for tooth sensitivity using three criteria, spontaneous pain, thermal sensitivity, sensitivity to percussion, at 7 days after the placement of restorations. 15,16 The results showed that short-term pulp complications were more effectively prevented with self-etching adhesive systems than with conventional pulp protection, and that cavity depth and the type of dentin-bonding system were contributory factors in the occurrence of short-term pulp complications.…”