﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<ArticleSet>
  <Article>
    <Journal>
      <PublisherName>Tabriz University of Medical Sciences</PublisherName>
      <JournalTitle>Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects</JournalTitle>
      <Issn>2008-210X</Issn>
      <Volume>7</Volume>
      <Issue>1</Issue>
      <PubDate PubStatus="ppublish">
        <Year>2013</Year>
        <Month>03</Month>
        <DAY>01</DAY>
      </PubDate>
    </Journal>
    <ArticleTitle>Subcutaneous Connective Tissue Reactions to Various Endodontic Biomaterials: An Animal Study</ArticleTitle>
    <FirstPage>15</FirstPage>
    <LastPage>21</LastPage>
    <ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.5681/joddd.2013.003</ELocationID>
    <Language>EN</Language>
    <AuthorList>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Mohammad Ali</FirstName>
        <LastName>Saghiri</LastName>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Nader</FirstName>
        <LastName>Tanideh</LastName>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Franklin</FirstName>
        <LastName>Garcia-Godoy</LastName>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Mehrdad</FirstName>
        <LastName>Lotfi</LastName>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Kasra</FirstName>
        <LastName>Karamifar</LastName>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName>Dariush</FirstName>
        <LastName>Amanat</LastName>
      </Author>
    </AuthorList>
    <PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
    <ArticleIdList>
      <ArticleId IdType="doi">10.5681/joddd.2013.003</ArticleId>
    </ArticleIdList>
    <History>
      <PubDate PubStatus="received">
        <Year>2012</Year>
        <Month>07</Month>
        <Day>16</Day>
      </PubDate>
    </History>
    <Abstract>Background and aims. Biocompatibility of root-end filling materials is a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to compare the biocompatibility of a variety of commercial ProRoot WMTA cements and a resin-based cement (Geristore®) with different pH values of setting reaction and different aluminum contents, implanted into the subcutaneous connective tissue of rats at various time intervals. Materials and methods. Fifty Sprague-Dawley rats were used in this study. Polyethylene tubes were filled with Angelus WMTA, ProRoot WMTA, Bioaggregate, and Geristore. Empty control tubes were implanted into subcutaneous tissues and harvested at 7-, 14-, 28- and 60-day intervals. Tissue sections of 5 μm were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and observed under a light microscope. Inflammatory reactions were categorized as 0, none (without inflammatory cells); 1, mild (inflammatory cells ≤25); 2, moderate (25-125 inflammatory cells); and 3, severe (&gt;125 inflammatory cells). Statistical analysis was performed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests. Results. ProRoot WMTA and Angelus elicited significantly less inflammation than other materials (P&lt;0.05). After 7 days, however, all the materials induced significantly more inflammation than the controls (P&lt;0.05). Angelus-MTA group exhibited no significant differences from the Bioaggregate group (P=0.15); however, ProRoot WMTA elicited significantly less inflammation than Bioaggregate (P=0.02). Geristore induced significantly more inflammation than other groups (P&lt;0.05). Conclusion. Geristore induced an inflammatory response higher than ProRoot WMTA; therefore, it is not recommended for clinical use.</Abstract>
    <ObjectList>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">Bioaggregate</Param>
      </Object>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">biocompatibility</Param>
      </Object>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">endodontic cement</Param>
      </Object>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">Geristore</Param>
      </Object>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">mineral trioxide aggregate</Param>
      </Object>
    </ObjectList>
  </Article>
</ArticleSet>