Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Histopathologic study of rat connective tissue responses to maxillofacial silicone elastomers

  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this histopathologic study was to assess and compare the subcutaneous connective tissue reaction to three different maxillofacial silicone elastomers (Cosmesil, Multisil, Episil). The test materials were directly inserted subcutaneously into the dorsal subcutaneous tissue of Wistar albino rats. Histopathological examinations were done at 7, 30, and 90 days after the implantation procedure. The presence of inflammation, presence of inflammatory giant cells, and the thickness of fibrous connective tissue adjacent to each inserted sample were recorded. Data was evaluated by analysis of variance, Wilcoxon signed ranks test and Kruskal Wallis test. Cosmesil, Multisil and Episil silicone elastomers at 7 days elicited a severe inflammatory reaction. However, these reactions decreased by the 30 and 90 days. All silicone elastomers elicited a moderate inflammatory reaction at 30 and 90 days. There were no significant differences in tissue reaction between the materials at 7, 30, and 90 days (P > 0.05). All the maxillofacial silicone elastomers evaluated can not be assigned a favorable biocompatibility level based on this study’s histologic findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kiat-Amnuay S, Gettleman L, Khan Z, Goldsmith LJ. Effect of adhesive retention of maxillofacial prostheses. Part 2: Time and reapplication effects. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85:438–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Craig RG, Koran A, Yu R. Elastomers for maxillofacial applications. Biomaterials. 1980;1:112–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lontz JF. State-of-the-art materials used for maxillofacial prosthetic reconstruction. Dent Clin North Am. 1990;34:307–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lewis DH, Castleberry DJ. An assessment of recent advances in external maxillofacial materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;43:426–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Andres CJ, Haug SP, Munoz CA, Bernal G. Effects of environmental factors on maxillofacial elastomers: part I—Literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:327–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bell WT, Chalian VA, Moore BK. Polydimethyl siloxane materials in maxillofacial prosthetics: evaluation and comparison of physical properties. J Prosthet Dent. 1985;54:404–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Polyzois GL, Hensten-Pettersen A, Kullmann A. An assessment of the physical properties and biocompatibility of three silicone elastomers. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71:500–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Polyzois GL, Hensten-Pettersen A, Kullmann A. Effects of RTC-silicone maxillofacial prosthetic elastomers on cell cultures. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71:505–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hanks CT, Wataha JC, Sun Z. In vitro models of biocompatibility: a review. Dent Mater. 1996;12:186–93.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practitioners. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86:203–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Huang FM, Tsai CH, Yang SF, Chang YC. Induction of interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 gene expression by root canal sealers in human osteoblastic cells. J Endod. 2005;31:679–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jones DW. The future of biomaterials. J Can Dent Assoc. 1988;54:163–73.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. International Organisation for Standardization ISO/DIS 7405, Dentistry: preclinical evaluation of biocompatibility of medical devices used in dentistry:test methods (revision of ISO/TR 7405). Geneva, 1994.

  14. Federation Dentaire International. Recommended standard practices for biological evaluation of dental materials. Part 4.11: subcutaneous implantation test. Int Dent J. 1980;30:173–174.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wolfaardt JF, Cleaton-Jones P, Lownie J, Ackermann G. Biocompatibility testing of a silicone maxillofacial prosthetic elastomer: soft tissue study in primates. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:331–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bal BT, Yılmaz H, Aydın C, Karakoca S, Yılmaz S. Invitro cytotoxicity of maxillofacial silicone elastomers: effect of accelerated aging. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;89B:122–126.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ozbas H, Yaltirik M, Bilgiç B, Issever H. Reactions of connective tissue to compomers, composite and amalgam root-end filling materials. Int Endod J. 2003;36:281–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Olsson B, Sliwkowski A, Langeland K. Subcutaneous implantation for the biological evaluation of endodontic materials. J Endod. 1981;7:355–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Murata H, Hong G, Hamada T, Polyzois GL. Dynamic mechanical properties of silicone maxillofacial prosthetic materials and the influence of frequency and temperature on their properties. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16:369–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Waters MG, Jagger RG, Polyzois GL. Wettability of silicone rubber maxillofacial prosthetic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:439–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bodrumlu E, Muglali M, Sumer M, Guvenc T. The response of subcutaneous connective tissue to a new endodontic filling material. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008;84B:463–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Costa CA, Teixeira HM, do Nascimento AB, Hebling J. Biocompatibility of two current adhesive resins. J Endod. 2000;26:512–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. John KR. Biocompatibility of dental materials. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51:747–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilsnack RE, Meyer FJ, Smith JG. Human cell culture toxicity testing of medical devices and correlation to animal tests. Biomat Med Dev Art Org. 1973;1:543–62.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Syrjänen S, Hensten-Pettersen A, Kangasniemi K, Yli-Urpo A. In vitro and in vivo biological responses to some dental alloys tested separately and in combinations. Biomaterials. 1985;6:169–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wennberg A, Mjör A, Hensten-Pettersen A. Biological evaluation of dental restorative materials—a comparison of different test methods. J Biomed Mater Res. 1983;17:23–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hensten-Pettersen A, Hulterström A. Assessment of in vitro cytotoxicity of four RTV-silicone elastomers used for maxillo-facial prostheses. Acta Odontol Scand. 1980;38:163–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hulterström AK, Ruyter IE. Changes in appearance of silicone elastomers for maxillofacial prostheses as a result of aging. Int J Prosthodont. 1999;12:498–504.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Guttuso J. Histopathologic study of rat connective tissue responses to endodontic materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1963;16:713–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Holland SM, Gallin JI. Disorders of granulocytes and monocytes. In: Fauci AS, Braunwald E, Isselbacher KJ, Wilson JD, Martin JB, Kasper DL, Hauser SL, Longo DL, editors. Harrison's principles of internal medicine. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998. pp. 351–359.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kumar V, Cotran RS, Robbins SL. Basic pathology. 6th ed. Philedelphia: W.B. Saunders Comp; 1997. pp. 267–268.

  32. Schmalz G, Hambrok HC. Biological and scanning electron microscopic investigation of an epithesis material. ZWR. 1980;89:57–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Emek, 06510, Ankara, Turkey

    Bilge Turhan Bal, Handan Yılmaz, Cemal Aydın & Seçil Karakoca

  2. Department of Oral Pathology, Faculty of Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

    Benay Tokman

Authors
  1. Bilge Turhan Bal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Handan Yılmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cemal Aydın
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seçil Karakoca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Benay Tokman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bilge Turhan Bal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bal, B.T., Yılmaz, H., Aydın, C. et al. Histopathologic study of rat connective tissue responses to maxillofacial silicone elastomers. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 20, 1901–1907 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-009-3751-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-009-3751-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation