4.5 Article

Biocompatibility and immunohistochemical evaluation of a new calcium silicate-based cement, Bio-C Pulpo

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
卷 52, 期 5, 页码 689-700

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iej.13052

关键词

biocompatibility; bone sialoprotein; osteocalcin; osteopontin; pulpotomy

资金

  1. Programa Nacional de Cooperacao Academica da Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - CAPES/Brasil [PROCAD 88881.068437/2014-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To evaluate the inflammatory response and ability to induce mineral deposition through histological and immunohistochemical analysis for osteocalcin (OCN), osteopontin (OPN) and bone sialoprotein (BSP) of a new calcium silicate-based cement, Bio-C Pulpo (Angelus), compared to white mineral trioxide aggregate (White MTA-Ang) (Angelus). Methodology Polyethylene tubes containing Bio-C Pulpo and White MTA-Ang as well as empty tubes were implanted into the dorsal connective tissue of 30 Wistar rats, which were arranged in five groups according to the period of analysis: 7, 15, 30, 60 and 90 days. After each experimental period, the tubes with surrounding tissue were removed and histologically processed to be analysed using haematoxylin-eosin and immunohistochemistry for the detection of OCN, OPN and BSP. The data were statistically analysed (Friedman's test) at a 5% significance level. Results The inflammatory response observed with Bio-C Pulpo and White MTA-Ang was greater after 7 and 15 days and decreased from 30 days onwards. No significant difference was found between the control, Bio-C Pulpo and White MTA-Ang at the different periods of analysis (P > 0.05). The immunolabelling for OCN, OPN and BSP was more intense for Bio-C Pulpo and White MTA-Ang after 60 and 90 days, but there was no difference between Bio-C Pulpo and White MTA-Ang at the different periods of analysis (P > 0.05). Conclusion Bio-C Pulpo is biocompatible and induces immunolabelling of osteogenic markers such as OCN, OPN and BSP similar to White MTA-Ang.

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