Mixing failures of endodontic sealers: an in vivo biocompatibility study

Abstract

<p><strong>Objective:</strong> Evaluate, <em>in vivo</em>,<em> </em>the influence of mixing failures on endodontic sealers. <strong>Material and methods:</strong> To alveolus analysis, 80 rats were divided into Sealapex<sup>®</sup> and AH Plus<sup>®</sup> groups. Within each group, the sealer was subjected to either partial (incomplete homogenization—simulating handling failures) or total mixing (complete homogenization) over two periods of 7 and 30 days (n = 20). The maxillary incisor was extracted and a polyethylene tube containing the sealer was inserted. To quantify edema, 40 male rats were divided into four groups (n = 10). The animals received 2% Evans Blue intravenously, and either AH Plus<sup>®</sup> or Sealapex<sup>®</sup> was injected subcutaneously. The rats were euthanized after 3 or 6 hours and analyzed in a spectrophotometer (630 ƞm). To analyze the subcutaneous tissue, 20 rats received polyethylene tube implants with the sealers in the dorsal area (n=10), then euthanized after either 7 or 30 days, and inflammation was evaluated according to an inflammatory cells score. <strong>Results</strong>: In the alveolar 7-day group, control group presented an inflammation score 1, while all other groups presented a score 2, except AH plus<sup>®</sup> total mix group (3). After 30 days, all groups presented a score 1. The edemogenic test showed less edema in Sealapex<sup>®</sup> groups (p < 0.5). In subcutaneous 7-day period, all groups presented score 2. In 30 days, all groups revealed score 1, except AH Plus<sup>®</sup> partial mix group (2). <strong>Conclusion: </strong>Regarding mixing of the sealers, there were no significant differences among the groups.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong></p><p>AH Plus; Inflammation; Materials testing; Root canal filling materials; Sealapex.</p>

Biocompatibility and biomineralization assessment of mineral trioxide aggregate flow

“…The biocompatibility evaluation in rat model may be assessed by different methodologies such as pulpotomy [2], subcutaneous implantation [3], cell viability [4], or even in dental alveolus [5]. The implantation of these materials into the subcutaneous tissue of rats is considered a standardized [6], common, and valid test for biocompatibility [7], analyzing the inflammatory tissue response through HE staining [3-5, 8, 9] within time periods of the recommended standard practices for biological evaluation of dental materials [10].…”

Accuracy of radiographic pixel linear analysis in detecting bone loss in periodontal disease: Study in diabetic rats

“…Studies in rats have been previously used in different models to assess tissue response in subcutaneous ( Bueno et al, 2016 , Bueno et al, 2019 ), apical periodontitis ( Barcelos et al, 2020 , Cosme‐Silva et al, 2020Cosme‐Silva et al, 2020Cosme‐Silva et al, 2020 ), dental alveolus ( Bueno et al, 2017 ), or periodontal ( Cintra et al, 2013 ), whether in normal or under systemic conditions, such as diabetic ( Cintra et al, 2013 , Cintra et al, 2014b ), hypertensive ( Martins et al, 2016 ) or even under alcohol consumption ( Dal‐Fabbro et al, 2019 ).…”

Dental discoloration caused by Grey-MTAFlow cement: analysis of its physicochemical, biological and antimicrobial properties

“…Grey-MTAFlow cement has an alkalinizing capability, low solubility, adequate radiopacity, biocompatibility, and induction of mineralisation. 8,9 However, no studies have yet evaluated its color stability. This material is grey, and the presence of bismuth oxide in its composition is a factor that may cause discoloration after contact with the dentine.…”