Baldasso Flávia Emi Razera, Kopper Patrícia Maria Poli, Morgental Renata Dornelles, Steier Liviu, Figueiredo José Antônio Poli de, Scarparo Roberta Kochenborger
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Dental School, UFRS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Department of Stomatology, Dental School, UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil.
Braz Dent J. 2016 Oct-Dec;27(6):657-663. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201600719.
Satisfactory biological behavior is a necessary requirement for clinical application of endodontic materials. In this study, the connective tissue responses to silicone (GuttaFlow 2), epoxy resin (AH Plus) and zinc oxide and eugenol (Endofill) based sealers were compared. Twelve Wistar rats had polyethylene tubes (four per animal) containing one of the tested sealers and empty tubes (negative control) implanted in their subcutaneous tissue. The tubes were randomly placed 2 cm from the spine and at least 2 cm apart from one another. Tissue samples with implants were processed for histological analysis after 7 or 60 days (n=6 animals per period). Inflammatory cells, fibrous condensation and abscess were scored according to their intensity. Friedman, followed by Dunn's post hoc, was used to compare sealers. Differences between the two experimental periods were verified using Mann-Witney U test (p<0.05). At 7 days, most of the histological parameters showed no significant differences amongst groups. Endofill group scored higher than the others for giant cells (o<0.05) and promoted a greater number of samples presenting abscess formation. GuttaFlow 2 tended to show a less intense inflammatory infiltrate compared to the other materials. At 60 days, there were no significant differences between groups in most of the histological parameters evaluated. However, it was observed that Endofill scored higher for macrophages (p<0.05) compared to the control group, and GuttaFlow 2 tended to present lower scores than the others for neutrophils and abscess. GuttaFlow 2 showed proper biological behavior and should be considered adequate for clinical practice.
良好的生物学行为是牙髓材料临床应用的必要条件。在本研究中，比较了结缔组织对硅酮类（GuttaFlow 2）、环氧树脂类（AH Plus）和氧化锌丁香酚类（Endofill）封闭剂的反应。将12只Wistar大鼠在其皮下组织中植入装有其中一种受试封闭剂的聚乙烯管（每只动物4根）和空管（阴性对照）。这些管子随机放置在距离脊柱2 cm处，且彼此相距至少2 cm。植入后7天或60天（每个时间段n = 6只动物），对带有植入物的组织样本进行组织学分析。根据炎症细胞、纤维性凝聚和脓肿的强度进行评分。采用Friedman检验，随后进行Dunn事后检验来比较封闭剂。使用Mann-Witney U检验验证两个实验时间段之间的差异（p<0.05）。在7天时，大多数组织学参数在各组之间无显著差异。Endofill组的巨细胞评分高于其他组（p<0.05），并且有更多样本出现脓肿形成。与其他材料相比，GuttaFlow 2往往表现出较弱的炎症浸润。在60天时，大多数评估的组织学参数在各组之间无显著差异。然而，观察到Endofill组的巨噬细胞评分高于对照组（p<0.05），而GuttaFlow 2的中性粒细胞和脓肿评分往往低于其他组。GuttaFlow 2表现出良好的生物学行为，应被认为适用于临床实践。
