DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a36512, PubMed ID (PMID): 27419241Pages 325-330, Language: EnglishLacerda-Santos, Rogério / Sampaio, Gêisa Aiane de Morais / Moura, Mirella de Fátima Liberato de / Carvalho, Fabiola Galbiatti de / Santos, Antonielson dos / Pithon, Matheus Melo / Alves, Polliana MunizPurpose: To examine whether a difference exists between the in vivo biocompatibility of glass-ionomer cements (GICs) containing chlorhexidine (CHX) in different concentrations.
Materials and Methods: Eighty-four male Wistar rats were distributed into 7 groups (n = 12) and received subcutaneous implants of small tubes containing different materials, as follows: Ketac control (K), Ketac-CHX 10% (K10), Ketac-CHX 18% (K18), Resilience control (R), Resilience-CHX 10% (R10), Resilience-CHX 18% (R18), Control (polyethylene). The animals were then sacrificed on post-insertion days 7, 15 and 30, and tissues were examined under an optical microscope for inflammatory infiltrate, edema, necrosis, granulation tissue, multinucleated giant cells, and collagen fibers. The results were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests (p 0.05).
Results: Groups K18 and R18 showed larger areas of intense inflammatory infiltrate, with significant differences between group C and groups K18 and R18 (p = 0.007) at 7 days, and between groups C and K18 (p = 0.017) at 15 days. In terms of tissue repair, groups K18 and R18 demonstrated a lower quantity of collagen fibers with significant differences from group C (p = 0.019) at 7 days, and between group K18 and group C (p = 0.021) at 15 days.
Conclusion: The 18% concentration of CHX was shown to have a toxic effect. The 10% concentration of CHX was shown to be suitable for tissue contact. The addition of CHX to the glass-ionomer cements is a highly promising method for obtaining of an antibacterial GIC for use in clinical practice.
Keywords: glass-ionomer cements, biocompatible materials, dentistry
