4.5 Article

The Number of Bleaching Sessions Influences Pulp Tissue Damage in Rat Teeth

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 1576-1580

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.08.007

关键词

Hydrogen peroxide; pulp reaction; tooth bleaching

资金

  1. FAPESP [2011/13709-2]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [11/13709-2] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Hydrogen peroxide tooth bleaching is claimed to cause alterations in dental tissue structures. This study investigated the influence of the number of bleaching sessions on pulp tissue in rats. Methods: Male Wistar rats were studied in 5 groups (groups 15-55) of 10 each, which differed by the number (1-5) of bleaching sessions. In each session, the animals were anesthetized, and 35% hydrogen peroxide gel was applied to 3 upper right molars. Two days after the experimental period, the animals were killed, and their jaws were processed for light microscope evaluation. Pulp tissue reactions were scored as follows: 1, no or few inflammatory cells and no reaction; 2, <25 cells and a mild reaction; 3, between 25 and 125 cells and a moderate reaction; and 4, 125 or more cells and a severe reaction. Results from each experimental group were compared between groups and within groups to the corresponding unbleached upper left molars and analyzed for significant differences using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P < .05). Results: All tissue sections showed significant bleaching-induced changes in the dental pulp. After 1 bleaching session, necrotic tissue in the pulp horns and underlying inflammatory changes were observed. The extent and intensity of these changes increased with the number of bleaching sessions. After 5 sessions, the changes included necrotic areas in the pulp tissue involving the second third of the radicular pulp and intense inflammation in the apical third. Conclusions: The number of bleaching sessions directly influenced the extent of pulp damage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据