ObjectiveThe objective of the present study was to verify the hypothesis that no difference
in biocompatibility exists between different orthodontic adhesives.Material and MethodsThirty male Wistar rats were used in this study and divided into five groups
(n=6): Group 1 (control, distilled water), Group 2 (Concise), Group 3 (Xeno III),
Group 4 (Transbond XT), and Group 5 (Transbond plus Self-Etching Primer). Two
cavities were performed in the subcutaneous dorsum of each animal to place a
polyvinyl sponge soaked with 2 drops of the respective adhesive in each surgical
loci. Two animals of each group were sacrificed after 7, 15, and 30 days, and
their tissues were analyzed by using an optical microscope.ResultsAt day 7, Groups 3 (Transbond XT) and 4 (Xeno III) showed intense mono- and
polymorphonuclear inflammatory infiltrate with no differences between them,
whereas Groups 1 (control) and 2 (Concise) showed moderate mononuclear
inflammatory infiltrate. At day 15, severe inflammation was observed in Group 3
(Transbond XT) compared to other groups. At day 30, the same group showed a more
expressive mononuclear inflammatory infiltrate compared to other groups.ConclusionAmong the orthodontic adhesive analyzed, it may be concluded that Transbond XT
exhibited the worst biocompatibility. However, one cannot interpret the
specificity of the data generated in vivo animal models as a human response.