Reaction of subcutaneous connective tissue of rats to implanted dental cements

Boyd, John; Mitchell, David F.

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(61)90124-x

Cited by 26 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to reports from former implantation studies the operative trauma appeared rather marked in the present study (Dixon & Rickert 1933, Mitchell 1959, Hall & Mitchell 1960, Boyd & Mitchell 1961, Torneck 1961, Guttuso 1963, Guglani & Allen 1965. The short term implants did not allow a finer distinction between the test materials.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 97%

“…Furthermore, it is impossible to been introduced (e. g. Spangberg & Lange-ascertain if an irritation of the wound area land 1973). Local toxicity screening is car-is caused by the toxic substances in the ried out as implantation tests to assess the dressing or by the physical behaviour of the biologic properties (Dixon & Rickert 1933, material (Gjerdet & Haugen 1978), which Mitchell 1959, Boyd & Mitchell 1961, Gut-may result in poor adaption to wound surtuso 1963, Roydhouse 1968). So called face, microleakage of fluid and bacterial "usage-tests", i, e. where the materials ate growth (Persson & Thilander 1968, O'Neil evaluated in a manner similar to that in 1975), Although periodontal dressings are which it is intended used in clinical practice, only in contact with the tissue for a limited have also been developed in some areas, but period of time, it is essential that they no generally accepted evaluation programs should cause minitnal irritation to the tisare available.…”

Section: Introductimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reactions to periodontal dressings have also been tested with implantation techniques. Small disk-shaped pellets of the dressings have been implanted (Hall & Mitchell 1960, Baer & Werthefmer 1961, Guglani & Allen 1965, Frisch & Bhaskar 1967, or the material has been injected into a pocket made in the connective tissue (Boyd & Mitchell 1961). No study of the tissue reaction has been performed following the introductioti of such materials into tubes according to recommended procedures (American Dental Association 1976).…”

Section: Introductimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Subcutaneous implants for assessements of dental materials with emphasis on periodontal dressings

Haugen¹,

Mjör²

1978

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polyethylene tubes filled with various dental materials were placed as subcutaneous implants in rats. A scoring system for no, slight, moderate and severe reaction was established on the basis of the tissue response to a variety of materials for the evaluation of long term implants (30 or 90 days). Short term implants (7 or 14 days) were evaluated by deciding whether or not an effect from the material could be found in addition to the operative trauma. The scoring system was used to evaluate the reactions to three periodontal dressings. Tissue from the short term implantation periods exhibited marked reactions to most implants. Long term implantation revealed that a difference in the tissue response to the three dressings was present, For two of the materials the initial irritation was followed by an innocuous state, but from the third dressing a continuous irritation of the tissue was observed.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subcutaneous implants for assessements of dental materials with emphasis on periodontal dressings

Haugen¹,

Mjör²

1978

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1996) used a submucous injection technique in order to simulate the extrusion (overflow) of sealer through the root apex. Although this method has been used by other workers (Boyd & Mitchell 1961, Guaraciaba & Fava de Moraes 1980), it does produce several inflammatory reactions. It may be that the polyethylene tube implant technique (Torneck 1966) would have produced a different histological response, especially since it does not reproduce the extrusion of material.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The histological effects of four endodontic sealers implanted in the oral mucosa: submucous injection versus implant in polyethylene tubes

Figueiredo

Pesce²,

Gioso

et al. 2001

Int Endodontic J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under the conditions of this study there was no relationship between the method of implantation and the tissue response; the silver-containing sealers produced pigmentation, and the concentration of silver influenced the quantity and size of the tattoos. The sealers elicited various responses when in direct contact with the surrounding tissues: the calcium hydroxide-containing sealer had enhanced healing when compared to the other sealers.

show abstract

“…Site of test (a) Subcutaneous. The problems of testing the irritant properties of restorative materials directly in teeth will be considered in detail later, but it was the recognition of such problems which led to the use of subcutaneous implants as an alternative test procedure (Dixon & Rickert, 1933;Schaad, Carter & Myers, 1956;Mitchell, 1959;Boyd & Mitchell, 1961). Because the dental pulp is essentially a connective tissue it was considered that changes occurring in the subcutaneous connective tissues would be similar to those in the pulp.…”

Section: Ageingmentioning

confidence: 99%