In this study, the in vivo biocompatibility was evaluated by using conventional ionomer cements modified with Chlorhexidine (CHX) in different time intervals. In total, 105 male Wistar rats were randomized into seven groups: control, groups M, M10, M18 and groups RL, RL10, RL18 (M-Meron and RL-RivaLuting, and added CHX-10% and CHX-18%, respectively). Histological analyses of inflammatory infiltrate and collagen fibers, and immunohistochemistry of CD68+ for macrophages (MOs) and multinucleated giant cells (MGCs) were performed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFObjective: The focus of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility of ionomer cements modified with ethanolic extracts of propolis (EEP) in different concentrations and time intervals.
Materials And Methods: In total, one hundred and thirty-five male Wistar rats were randomized into nine groups: Control, Groups Meron, and Groups Ketac (conventional, and added with 10, 25, 50% EEP, respectively). Histological analyses of inflammatory infiltrate and collagen fibers, and immunohistochemistry of CD68+ for macrophages (MOs) and multinucleated giant cells (MGCs) were performed.
Objectives: The focus of this triple-blind randomized study was to evaluate the mechanical properties, antibacterial effect, and biocompatibility of glass ionomer cements (GICs) modified with ethanolic extracts of propolis (EEP).
Materials And Methods: For biocompatibility tests, 135 male Wistar rats were used and divided into nine groups: Group C (control, polyethylene), Groups M, M10, M25, M50 (Meron; conventional, and modified with 10%, 25%, 50% EEP, respectively), Groups KC, KC10, KC25, KC50 (Ketac Cem; conventional, and modified with 10%, 25%, 50% EEP, respectively). The tissues were analyzed under an optical microscope for different cellular events in different time intervals.
Background: The focus of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial, mechanical properties and biocompatibility of glass ionomer (GICs) modified by Chlorhexidine (CHX).
Material And Methods: For biocompatibility, 105 male Wistar rats were used, divided into 7 groups (n=15): Group C (Control,Polyethylene), Groups M, M10, M18, and Groups RL, RL10, RL18 (M-Meron and RL-Riva Luting: conventional, and modified with 10%, and 18% CHX, respectively). The tissues were analyzed under optical microscope for different cellular events and time intervals.
Objective: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference between the biocompatibility and degree of monomer conversion of flowable resins used as bioprotective materials of orthodontic mini-implants.
Materials And Methods: Forty-eight male Wistar rats were divided into four groups (n = 12). Group Control (polyethylene), Group Wave, Group Top Comfort, and Group Filtek.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the post-treatment anteroposterior and vertical alterations in skeletal Class II malocclusion with different maxillary patterns in patients treated with modified Thurow appliance. Forty-five patients (22 girls and 23 boys) with skeletal Class II and angle SN.GoGn ≤ 35 and different maxillary patterns (n = 15), as follows: retrusive (SNA<80°), normal (SNA = 80°- 84°) or protrusive (SNA>84°) maxilla; mean age 9 years at pre-treatment (T1) and 9 years and 10 months at post-treatment (T2), were treated with modified Thurow cervical traction appliance, with expander screw and extraoral face bow with 10° to 20° fold in relation to the intraoral arch.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF