Tissue responses assessed by intramuscular implantation

Abstract

Freshly mixed polymerized Hydron root canal filling material, fully set AH26 and Teflon were implanted in the quadriceps muscle of guinea pigs and assessed histologically at 2 days, 1, 2, 3, 12 and 26 weeks after implantation. All materials were characterized by peri-implant fibrous connective tissue capsule formation. Von Kossa-positive calcific material was observed at the implant-tissue interface of Hydron implants. The amount of apparently calcified material increased with time. Inflammation was not a prominent tissue response for any of the test materials, nor was a foreign body giant cell response.

Subcutaneous adipose tissue exerts proinflammatory cytokines after minimal trauma in humans

“…An interesting question remains: is this disturbance of cytokine levels only caused by the initial trauma of catheter insertion, or is it further augmented by the remaining foreign body of the catheter? The catheter used is made out of FEP-Teflon, a material extensively tested for its biocompatibility that has not been shown to provoke any significant inflammatory tissue reaction or foreign body granuloma formation in vivo (6,16,22). According to the literature, we hypothesize for the present investigation that the cytokine response is primarily initiated by the initial trauma caused by the catheter insertion.…”

Methodology for Morphometric Analysis of Modern Human Contralateral Premolars

“…Their conclusion regarding lack of conformity to root canal regularities and shrinkage resulted in the histological study of three experimental root canal materials; root filling consisting of silicone elastomer and adhesive (Silastic 382 elastomer and Silastic Medical Adhesive type A) or a pure polyhydroxy-ethyl-methacrylate root filling (Hydron, Hydron Technologies, FL, USA ) (185). The in vitro & in vivo preliminary findings for Hydron were very promising [192][193][194], but a subsequent long-term study showed poorer results with Hydron versus gutta-percha and AH-26 [195]. Furthermore, other independent studies on histological responses and leakage found that Hydron did not fulfill the manufactures promises concerning physical/clinical properties as it elicited severe inflammatory responses, demonstrated more leakage than conventional root filling materials, and was resorbable [196][197][198].…”