两种光固化单元聚合后不同树脂复合材料的生物相容性:免疫组织化学研究

IF 0.9 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Irem Ipek, Murat Unal, Tulay Koc
{"title":"两种光固化单元聚合后不同树脂复合材料的生物相容性:免疫组织化学研究","authors":"Irem Ipek, Murat Unal, Tulay Koc","doi":"10.26650/eor.20231260787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study is to compare the biocompatibility of two different resin composites after polymerization under two different light sources in three different time periods.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>72 polyethylene tubes polymerized with 2 different resin composites and 2 different light sources (Elipar S10 and Valo ) [Group 1: Kalore Elipar S10 (KE), Group 2: Kalore Valo (KV), Group 3: Essentia Elipar S10 (EE), Group 4: Essentia Valo (EV)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 18 rats. 24 empty polyethylene tubes [Group 5: (Control group)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 6 rats. Then, the rats were sacrificed after 7th, 15th and 30th days in each time intervals (n=8). Biopsy samples were stained with H&E and examined for inflammation, necrosis, macrophage infiltrate, giant cell and fibrous capsule criteria. Immunohistochemical staining was performed to evaluate proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-8).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When the composite groups and the control groups were compared; the difference was statistically significant for the criteria of inflammation at 7th and 15th days, there was no statistical difference between the time points in terms of fibrous capsule and necrosis. When the composite groups and control groups were evaluated in terms of proinflammatory cytokines; statistically significant differences were found at 7th, 15th and 30th days.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All CRs used in this study showed acceptable biocompatibility in the subcutaneous tissues of rats after polymerization with different light sources.</p>","PeriodicalId":41993,"journal":{"name":"European Oral Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10927706/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biocompatibility of different resin composites after polymerization with two light curing units: an immunohistochemical study.\",\"authors\":\"Irem Ipek, Murat Unal, Tulay Koc\",\"doi\":\"10.26650/eor.20231260787\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study is to compare the biocompatibility of two different resin composites after polymerization under two different light sources in three different time periods.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>72 polyethylene tubes polymerized with 2 different resin composites and 2 different light sources (Elipar S10 and Valo ) [Group 1: Kalore Elipar S10 (KE), Group 2: Kalore Valo (KV), Group 3: Essentia Elipar S10 (EE), Group 4: Essentia Valo (EV)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 18 rats. 24 empty polyethylene tubes [Group 5: (Control group)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 6 rats. Then, the rats were sacrificed after 7th, 15th and 30th days in each time intervals (n=8). Biopsy samples were stained with H&E and examined for inflammation, necrosis, macrophage infiltrate, giant cell and fibrous capsule criteria. Immunohistochemical staining was performed to evaluate proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-8).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When the composite groups and the control groups were compared; the difference was statistically significant for the criteria of inflammation at 7th and 15th days, there was no statistical difference between the time points in terms of fibrous capsule and necrosis. When the composite groups and control groups were evaluated in terms of proinflammatory cytokines; statistically significant differences were found at 7th, 15th and 30th days.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All CRs used in this study showed acceptable biocompatibility in the subcutaneous tissues of rats after polymerization with different light sources.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":41993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Oral Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10927706/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Oral Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20231260787\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Oral Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20231260787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较两种不同树脂复合材料在两种不同光源下聚合后在三个不同时间段内的生物相容性。材料和方法:在 18 只大鼠的背结缔组织中植入 72 支用两种不同树脂复合材料和两种不同光源(Elipar S10 和 Valo)聚合的聚乙烯管[第 1 组:Kalore Elipar S10 (KE);第 2 组:Kalore Valo (KV);第 3 组:Essentia Elipar S10 (EE);第 4 组:Essentia Valo (EV)]。在 6 只大鼠的背结缔组织中植入 24 支空聚乙烯管[第 5 组:(对照组)]。然后,在第 7 天、第 15 天和第 30 天的每个时间间隔(n=8)后将大鼠处死。活检样本用 H&E 染色,检查炎症、坏死、巨噬细胞浸润、巨细胞和纤维囊标准。免疫组化染色用于评估促炎细胞因子(IL-1β、IL-6 和 IL-8):综合组与对照组比较,第 7 天和第 15 天的炎症标准差异有统计学意义,而纤维囊和坏死标准在各时间点之间无统计学差异。在对复合组和对照组的促炎细胞因子进行评估时,发现第 7 天、第 15 天和第 30 天的差异有统计学意义:本研究中使用的所有 CR 在使用不同光源聚合后,在大鼠皮下组织中均表现出可接受的生物相容性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Biocompatibility of different resin composites after polymerization with two light curing units: an immunohistochemical study.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the biocompatibility of two different resin composites after polymerization under two different light sources in three different time periods.

Materials and methods: 72 polyethylene tubes polymerized with 2 different resin composites and 2 different light sources (Elipar S10 and Valo ) [Group 1: Kalore Elipar S10 (KE), Group 2: Kalore Valo (KV), Group 3: Essentia Elipar S10 (EE), Group 4: Essentia Valo (EV)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 18 rats. 24 empty polyethylene tubes [Group 5: (Control group)] were implanted in the dorsal connective tissue of 6 rats. Then, the rats were sacrificed after 7th, 15th and 30th days in each time intervals (n=8). Biopsy samples were stained with H&E and examined for inflammation, necrosis, macrophage infiltrate, giant cell and fibrous capsule criteria. Immunohistochemical staining was performed to evaluate proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6 and IL-8).

Results: When the composite groups and the control groups were compared; the difference was statistically significant for the criteria of inflammation at 7th and 15th days, there was no statistical difference between the time points in terms of fibrous capsule and necrosis. When the composite groups and control groups were evaluated in terms of proinflammatory cytokines; statistically significant differences were found at 7th, 15th and 30th days.

Conclusion: All CRs used in this study showed acceptable biocompatibility in the subcutaneous tissues of rats after polymerization with different light sources.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Oral Research
European Oral Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信