The histological effects of four endodontic sealers implanted in the oral mucosa: submucous injection versus implant in polyethylene tubes.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to evaluate pigmentation and tissue response to four endodontic sealers placed in the oral mucosa of rabbits by either submucous injection or implant in polyethylene tubes.


METHODS
Thirty white New Zealand rabbits were divided randomly into two groups of eight for N-Rickert and AH-26, and two groups of seven for Fillcanal and Sealer 2 6. On the right side of the filter, corresponding to the gingivo-labial sulcus in humans, the sealer was injected; on the left side the sealer was placed within a polyethylene tube and implanted. Direct clinical observations were made at 30, 60 and 90 days. The animals were then sacrificed for histological analysis.


RESULTS
After 60 days of observation N-Rickert and AH-26 produced tattoos that became larger by 90 days. Submucous injection produced larger and more numerous pigmentation, when compared to implant in polyethylene tubes. N-Rickert sealer displayed larger and more numerous tattoos when compared to AH-26. Histological analysis showed no differences between the two methods of implantation. All sealers elicited some kind of inflammatory response; the most irritant was Fillcanal, followed by N-Rickert and AH-26. Sealer 26 elicited a mild reaction only.


CONCLUSIONS
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.
Figueiredo
J A
JA
Department of Endodontics, Universidade Luterana do Brasil, Canoas. endofig@zaz.com.br
Pesce
H F
HF
Gioso
M A
MA
Figueiredo
M A
MA
D000278:Administration, Buccal; D000818:Animals; D001129:Argyria / Q000209:etiology*; D001466:Barium Sulfate / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity; D001729:Bismuth / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity; D001881:Borates / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity; D002126:Calcium Hydroxide / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity; D004338:Drug Combinations; D004343:Drug Implants; D004853:Epoxy Resins; D005054:Eugenol / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity; D005260:Female; D005355:Fibrosis / Q000139:chemically induced; D007279:Injections, Subcutaneous; D008213:Lymphocyte Activation; D008262:Macrophage Activation; D008709:Methenamine / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity; D023421:Models, Animal; D009061:Mouth Mucosa / Q000187:drug effects*; D018375:Neutrophil Activation; D011095:Polyethylenes; D011817:Rabbits; D011897:Random Allocation; D012117:Resins, Synthetic / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials / Q000633:toxicity*; D012834:Silver / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity; D014025:Titanium / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity; D015034:Zinc Oxide / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000633:toxicity
D001881:Borates; D004338:Drug Combinations; D004343:Drug Implants; D004853:Epoxy Resins; C080618:N-Rickert sealer; D011095:Polyethylenes; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D012387:Root Canal Filling Materials; C080620:Sealer 26; D001466:Barium Sulfate; D012834:Silver; D005054:Eugenol; C028044:epoxy resin AH-26; C038425:Fillcanal; D014025:Titanium; D008709:Methenamine; D002126:Calcium Hydroxide; D015034:Zinc Oxide; D001729:Bismuth