Inflammatory response to dental polishing and prophylaxis materials in rats.
OBJECTIVE
To describe the tissue response to implanted polishing and prophylaxis materials using a rat model system.


METHODS
Two polishing pastes (diamond polishing paste and aluminum polishing paste), two prophylaxis materials (prophylaxis paste with fluoride and air polishing prophylaxis powder) and negative and positive controls were subcutaneously implanted in rats. Tissue specimens obtained after 2 days, 1, 4, 6 and 8 weeks after implantation were processed for routine hematoxylin and eosin staining and polarized light evaluation.


RESULTS
Air polishing prophylaxis powder produced a mild inflammatory response. A more intense inflammation was elicited by diamond polishing paste, and the prophylaxis paste with fluoride elicited an even greater response. The aluminum polishing paste produced the most severe and persistent tissue response, which was of the granulomatous type.


CONCLUSIONS
This finding suggests that foreign body reaction should be considered in a gingivitis that does not respond to plaque control or does not represent a mucocutaneous lesion.
Department of Oral Diagnostic Sciences, School of Dental Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA.
Jose Luis
JL
Tapia
Mirdza E
ME
Neiders
Alfredo
A
Aguirre
W D
WD
McCall
Robert E
RE
Cohen
D000818:Animals; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000009:adverse effects*; D003775:Dental Polishing / Q000009:adverse effects*; D003777:Dental Prophylaxis / Q000009:adverse effects*; D005260:Female; D005549:Foreign-Body Reaction / Q000139:chemically induced*; D007249:Inflammation / Q000139:chemically induced*; D009824:Ointments / Q000009:adverse effects; D011208:Powders / Q000009:adverse effects; D051381:Rats; D017208:Rats, Wistar; D040521:Subcutaneous Tissue / Q000187:drug effects
D003764:Dental Materials; D009824:Ointments; D011208:Powders