Biocompatibility of a new epoxy resin-based root canal sealer in subcutaneous tissue of rat

In Vivo Evaluation of Tissue Biocompatibility of Calcium Silicate-based and Epoxy Resin-based Sealers

Introduction

Calcium silicate-based sealers are an alternative to be used into root canal, mainly to their biological properties. However, some biological parameters need to be determined in an in vivo animal research model. So, the aim of the present study was to evaluate in vivo the tissue biocompatibility of a calcium silicate-based sealer (EndoSequence BC Sealer) and an epoxy resin-based sealer (AH-Plus).

Materials and Methods

Polyethylene tubes were filled with freshly mixed sealers and implanted in connective subcutaneous tissue of 25 rats (5/euthanasia day) (Rattus norvegicus albinus). Empty tubes were used as controls and no tubes as sham. Histopathological (hematoxylin eosin) and histochemical (Picrosirius red) examinations were conducted at 3, 7, 15, 30 and 60 days (five rats/day) after the implantation procedure (n=5/group). The type/intensity of inflammation and collagenesis was analyzed statistically with Friedman or Kruskal-Wallis/Dunn tests (P<0.05).

Results

The profile of inflammation induced by AH-Plus (Median=2, Range=2-3) was significantly greater than that by Endosequence BC Sealer (Median=1, Range=1-1) during the 15-day experimentation period (P=0.018). After 30 days, both materials produced similar tissue reaction (P>0.05). AH-Plus and Endosequence BC Sealer (Median=2, Range=1-2) induced a high level of fibrosis after 60-day than control (Median=1, Range=1-1) and sham (Median=0, Range=0-0) groups (P<0.001) of fibrosis based in type I collagen increase (P=0.025 and P=0.021, respectively). Tissue necrosis was not observed and the bioceramic sealer showed significant signs of endocytosed (Median=1, Range=1-1) material after 7 days than other groups (Median=0, Range=0-0) (P<0.05). The calcium silicate-based sealer induced tissue repair faster than the epoxy resin-based sealer tested. However, both materials showed adequate biocompatibility and tolerance by subcutaneous tissues, with few differences in inflammatory profiles, formation of granulation tissue, and collagenesis.

Conclusions

It may be concluded that calcium silicate-based sealer (EndoSequence BC Sealer) and an epoxy resin-based sealer (AH-Plus) presented suitable biocompatibility.

Biocompatibility of three different root canal sealers, experimental study

OBJECTIVES

This study was assessed the biocompatibility of three different root canal sealers (Well-Root St, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and AH-Plus) following implantation in rat subcutaneous tissues, using histopathological immunohistochemical analysis.

METHODS

Four groups of eighty-four male rats each underwent subcutaneous dorsal implantation of a polyethylene tube, either empty or filled. Tissues were collected, fixed, and processed for histological analysis after 7, 15, and 30 d. Slides were photographed and digitally processed to identify lymphocytes and macrophages using Cluster of differentiation 3 (CD3) and cluster of differentiation 68 (CD68) markers, respectively. P was set at 0.05, when lymphocyte and macrophage infiltration was compared between groups and observation times using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

Histopathological analysis of all groups revealed an inflammatory reaction followed by the emergence of a fibrous capsule after 7 days. After 30 days, the thickness of the fibrous capsule and the inflammatory response subsided. CD3 staining for immunohistochemical analysis revealed that the AH-Plus group had the highest mean percentage of lymphocyte infiltration at 7 and 15 days, followed by the Well-Root St, GuttaFlow Bioseal, and Control groups. After 30 days, no discernible difference was observed between the groups in terms of the mean percentage of lymphocyte infiltration. After 7, 15, and 30 days, there was a significant difference in the mean percentage of macrophage infiltration across the groups, as demonstrated by CD68 staining. After 7, 15, and 30 days, the AH-Plus group had the highest mean percentage of macrophage infiltration, followed by the Well-Root St. and GuttaFlow Bioseal groups, while the control group had the lowest mean percentage.

CONCLUSION

All observational periods showed minimal inflammatory reactions to GuttaFlow Bioseal. After subcutaneous tissue implantation in a rat model, the initial inflammatory reactions to Well-Root St and AH-Plus had abated by day 30, and all tested sealers had outstanding biocompatibility.

Sealing ability in vitro study and biocompatibility in vivo animal study of different bioceramic based sealers

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of root canal therapy in endodontic practice is largely determined by providing a compact fluid-tight closure at the apex of the root canal, which inhibits irritant entry and buildup, which leads to a biological breakdown of the attachment mechanism and failure. During obturation, along with gutta-percha, root canal sealers are employed to fill voids and seal root canals. Root canal sealers come in a variety of shapes and sizes, each with its own set.

AIM

Evaluation of sealing ability in vitro study by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and biocompatibility in vivo animals study of BioRoot RCS and meta Biomed bio_ceramic sealer (CeraSeal RCS) and compared the findings with that of Zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) sealer as control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study utilized two bio_ceramic sealers (BioRoot RCS and meta Biomed bio_ceramic sealer (CeraSeal RCS) and compared the findings with that of ZOE sealer as control. Biocompatibility was determined by examining histopathological biopsy specimens collected from rabbits. Each rabbit had four dentin tubes implanted into the subcutaneous tissues, one for BioRoot RCS, one for CeraSeal RCS, and one for ZOE RCS, with the fourth tube being empty haematoxylin and eosin were used to stain histological sections, and a light microscope was used to evaluate them. Extracted human single canal premolars were used to evaluate the sealing ability. The root canals were divided into three sections (coronal, middle, and apical). SEM was used to assess the adhesion quality at the sealer-dentin interface.

RESULTS

BioRoot and CeraSeal sealers have excellent sealing adaptation and biocompatibility, as well as rapid tissue recovery, while ZOE sealers have a slower recovery of inflammatory reaction results when compared to bio_root and ceraSeal sealers, as well as a less sealing adaptation than the two other bio_ceramic sealers.

CONCLUSION

In general, the two bioceramic sealers tested were biocompatible and capable of sealing or adhesion. While ZOE had less adherence ability and less biocompatibility.

Biocompatibility of an experimental endodontic sealer (Resil) in comparison with AH26 and AH-Plus in rats: An animal study

Background. This experimental study sought to assess the biocompatibility of Resil, an experimental epoxy resin-based sealer, in comparison with AH26 and AH-Plus sealers in rats. Methods. Twelve male Wistar rats weighing 400 to 500 grams were evaluated in this experimental study. Four polyethylene tubes containing Resil, AH-Plus, AH26 sealers, and an empty tube were implanted subcutaneously in rats. The degree of inflammation, type of inflammatory cells present, foreign body reaction, quality of connective tissue, and presence of fibrotic capsule were evaluated histopathologically at 7 and 30 days after implanting the tubes to assess the biocompatibility of sealers. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square test. Results. At 7 days, the degree of inflammation in Resil group was almost similar to AH26 group, and 66.7% of rats showed moderate inflammation. AH-Plus group showed less inflammation than Resil and AH26 (50% of rats showed low degree of inflammation), At 30 days, the inflammatory status of all groups was the same, and 83.3% of rats showed very low degree of inflammation. The inflammatory response during the experiment decreased from day 7 to day 30 in all groups. The neutrophil count (P=0.00), fibrotic capsule (P=0.01) and the amount of granulation tissue (P=0.05) significantly decreased from day 7 to day 30 in Resil group. Conclusion. Resil sealer showed appropriate biocompatibility at 7 and 30 days after subcutaneous implantation in rats, comparable to AH26 and AH-Plus. Clinical studies are required to confirm these results.

Assessment of the biocompatibility of mineral trioxide aggregate, bioaggregate, and biodentine in the subcutaneous tissue of rats

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the tissue inflammation caused by three endodontic repair materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The materials included micro mega-mineral trioxide aggregate (MM-MTA), bioaggregate (BA), and biodentine (BD), which were implanted into the subcutaneous tissue of rats. The tissue samples for histological examination were prepared. The infiltration of lymphocytes and macrophages into the tissue was examined to assess the inflammatory response.

RESULTS

Lymphocyte infiltration: A significant increase was detected in the MM-MTA and BA groups on the 7th and 14th days as compared with the control (7th day P=0.0001, 14th day P=0.0176). There was no difference between the groups on the 45th day (P=0.1730). Lymphocyte infiltration had decreased over time in all groups. Macrophage infiltration: There was a significant increase by the 7th day in the test groups as compared to the control group (P=0.007). However, there was no difference between the experimental groups on the 14th (P=0.2708) and 45th (P=0.1291) days.

CONCLUSION

While MM-MTA and BA showed a similar biocompatibility, BD was more biocompatible than MM-MTA and BA in the 1 st week of the experiment. However, there was no difference between the materials at the end of the 45th day. MM-MTA, BA, and BD can be considered suitable endodontic repair materials.