• Users Online: 260
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ARTICLE
Year : 1999  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 8-12

A comparison of tissue reactions to potential retrograde root filling materials


1 Jr. Resident, Department of Periodontics with Preventive Dentistry, King George’s Medical College, Lucknow, India
2 Professor and Head, Department of Periodontics with Preventive Dentistry, King George’s Medical College, Lucknow, India
3 Assistant Professor, Rama Dental College, Kanpur, India

Correspondence Address:
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-7212.347457

Rights and Permissions

The objective of this study was to compare tissue reactions induced by potential retrograde filling materials. The materials used were amalgam, glass ionomer, IRM, composite resin and gold foil. One hundred and eight wistar rats were divided into five experimental and one control group. After anaesthesia, maxillary right incisor was extracted from each animal. Pellets of test materials of equal weight were implanted within the extraction socket.The animals were sacrificed at 4 and 12 weeks; the maxilla was dissected out and processed histologically. The tissue reaction was graded as none to severe. There was statistically significant difference in the mean inflammatory cell counts among all the groups at all study periods. The degree of inflammation gradually decreased with time. This study indicated that gold foil was the most biocompatible material followed by IRM, composite resin, amalgam and glass ionomer.


[PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed32    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded2    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal