Animal tests for biocompatibility of dental materials—relevance, advantages and limitations

Biocompatibility of resin‐based materials used as pulp‐capping agents

“…Based upon the differences between the histological findings reported in humans' and rats' teeth, it can be suggested that results from in vivo studies performed in animal teeth cannot be directly extrapolated to the human circumstances. This statement has been widely discussed in the dental literature (Wennberg et al . 1983, Browne 1994, ISO DIS 7405 1994, Costa et al .…”

“…Based upon the di¡erences between the histological ¢ndings reported in humans' and rats' teeth, it can be suggested that results from in vivo studies performed in animal teeth cannot be directly extrapolated to the human circumstances. This statement has been widely discussed in the dental literature (Wennberg et al 1983, Browne 1994, ISO DIS 7405 1994, Costa et al 2000a). Costa et al (2000a) reported that even the outcomes from in vivo studies carried out to evaluate the biocompatibility of dental materials applied to pulp exposures performed in sound human teeth cannot be extrapolated to clinical conditions, especially when the teeth exhibit pulp exposures caused by caries.…”

Biocompatibility of resin‐based materials used as pulp‐capping agents

“…Based upon the differences between the histological findings reported in humans' and rats' teeth, it can be suggested that results from in vivo studies performed in animal teeth cannot be directly extrapolated to the human circumstances. This statement has been widely discussed in the dental literature (Wennberg et al . 1983, Browne 1994, ISO DIS 7405 1994, Costa et al .…”

“…Based upon the di¡erences between the histological ¢ndings reported in humans' and rats' teeth, it can be suggested that results from in vivo studies performed in animal teeth cannot be directly extrapolated to the human circumstances. This statement has been widely discussed in the dental literature (Wennberg et al 1983, Browne 1994, ISO DIS 7405 1994, Costa et al 2000a). Costa et al (2000a) reported that even the outcomes from in vivo studies carried out to evaluate the biocompatibility of dental materials applied to pulp exposures performed in sound human teeth cannot be extrapolated to clinical conditions, especially when the teeth exhibit pulp exposures caused by caries.…”

Clinical and Radiographic Efficacy of Portland Cement as Pulpotomy Material in Human Primary Molar

“…25 Success of PC utilization may be explained by the strong initial stimulus, able to cause an immediate response of osteo-dentin formation in an attempt to isolate the remainders of the pulp from the action of the material. 26 In PC group, no tooth showed resorption throughout the total follow-up period. However, in MTA group, only one out of 20, showed internal resorption after 3 months.…”

Intramedullary bone tissue reaction of ion-releasing resin-modified glass-ionomer restoration versus two calcium silicate-based cements: an animal study

“…The old perception of biocompatibility was related to the disappearance of adverse tissue reaction to the tested material 19 , 20 . However, some materials were not found to induce any noteworthy interaction with the host living tissues 21 . These reactions which help the improvement of wound healing and granulation tissue formation.…”

Biocompatibility of resin‐based materials used as pulp‐capping agents

“…Based upon the differences between the histological findings reported in humans' and rats' teeth, it can be suggested that results from in vivo studies performed in animal teeth cannot be directly extrapolated to the human circumstances. This statement has been widely discussed in the dental literature (Wennberg et al . 1983, Browne 1994, ISO DIS 7405 1994, Costa et al .…”

“…Based upon the di¡erences between the histological ¢ndings reported in humans' and rats' teeth, it can be suggested that results from in vivo studies performed in animal teeth cannot be directly extrapolated to the human circumstances. This statement has been widely discussed in the dental literature (Wennberg et al 1983, Browne 1994, ISO DIS 7405 1994, Costa et al 2000a). Costa et al (2000a) reported that even the outcomes from in vivo studies carried out to evaluate the biocompatibility of dental materials applied to pulp exposures performed in sound human teeth cannot be extrapolated to clinical conditions, especially when the teeth exhibit pulp exposures caused by caries.…”

Clinical and Radiographic Efficacy of Portland Cement as Pulpotomy Material in Human Primary Molar

“…25 Success of PC utilization may be explained by the strong initial stimulus, able to cause an immediate response of osteo-dentin formation in an attempt to isolate the remainders of the pulp from the action of the material. 26 In PC group, no tooth showed resorption throughout the total follow-up period. However, in MTA group, only one out of 20, showed internal resorption after 3 months.…”

Intramedullary bone tissue reaction of ion-releasing resin-modified glass-ionomer restoration versus two calcium silicate-based cements: an animal study

“…The old perception of biocompatibility was related to the disappearance of adverse tissue reaction to the tested material 19 , 20 . However, some materials were not found to induce any noteworthy interaction with the host living tissues 21 . These reactions which help the improvement of wound healing and granulation tissue formation.…”

Biocompatibility of resin‐based materials used as pulp‐capping agents

“…Based upon the differences between the histological findings reported in humans' and rats' teeth, it can be suggested that results from in vivo studies performed in animal teeth cannot be directly extrapolated to the human circumstances. This statement has been widely discussed in the dental literature (Wennberg et al . 1983, Browne 1994, ISO DIS 7405 1994, Costa et al .…”

“…Based upon the di¡erences between the histological ¢ndings reported in humans' and rats' teeth, it can be suggested that results from in vivo studies performed in animal teeth cannot be directly extrapolated to the human circumstances. This statement has been widely discussed in the dental literature (Wennberg et al 1983, Browne 1994, ISO DIS 7405 1994, Costa et al 2000a). Costa et al (2000a) reported that even the outcomes from in vivo studies carried out to evaluate the biocompatibility of dental materials applied to pulp exposures performed in sound human teeth cannot be extrapolated to clinical conditions, especially when the teeth exhibit pulp exposures caused by caries.…”

Clinical and Radiographic Efficacy of Portland Cement as Pulpotomy Material in Human Primary Molar

“…25 Success of PC utilization may be explained by the strong initial stimulus, able to cause an immediate response of osteo-dentin formation in an attempt to isolate the remainders of the pulp from the action of the material. 26 In PC group, no tooth showed resorption throughout the total follow-up period. However, in MTA group, only one out of 20, showed internal resorption after 3 months.…”

Intramedullary bone tissue reaction of ion-releasing resin-modified glass-ionomer restoration versus two calcium silicate-based cements: an animal study

“…The old perception of biocompatibility was related to the disappearance of adverse tissue reaction to the tested material 19 , 20 . However, some materials were not found to induce any noteworthy interaction with the host living tissues 21 . These reactions which help the improvement of wound healing and granulation tissue formation.…”