The rabbit gingival tissue response to retraction liquids and tetrahydrozoline

Ivan Kostić; Dragan Mihailović; Stevo Najman; Sanja Stojanović; Milena Kostić

doi:10.2298/2037

Ivan Kostić Institute of Biology and Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš, Serbia
Dragan Mihailović Institute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš, Serbia
Stevo Najman Institute of Biology and Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš, Serbia
Sanja Stojanović Institute of Biology and Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Niš, Serbia
Milena Kostić Department of Prosthodontics, Clinic of Dentistry, Niš, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/2037

Keywords: gingivitis, tissues, inflammation, animals, laboratory,

Abstract

Backround/Aim. Retraction agents for temporary vertical and lateral suppression of gingival tissue as well as bleeding control and fluid flow in the gingival sulcus are expected to have maximal efficiency without irreversible damage of local tissue and adverse systemic effects. The research started from the assumption that tetrahydrozoline is a biologically more acceptable means of gingival retraction than commercially available preparations. The aim of the study was to comparatively analyse the inflammatory effects of different retraction materials and tetrahydrozoline. Methods. The effect of retraction liquid on the basis of aluminum chloride and epinephrine and tetrahydrozoline hydrochloride on gingival tissue of rabbits was investigated. The application time in the rabbit's gingival sulcus was 7 minutes. Tissue biopsy was performed after an hour, a day, and 7 and 30 days. Tissue preparations were analyzed under a microscope. Results. The obtained results indicate a reversible damage of gingival tissues as a result of local application of aluminum chloride- and epinephrine-based retraction agents. Their use led to acute inflammatory response after an observation period of 1 and 7 days. After 30 days reparation of damaged tissue was observed. The use of tetrahydrozoline resulted in a visibly weaker inflammatory response. Conclusion. Retraction liquids insertion led to an acute inflammatory response of gingival tissue which in time assumed a chronic character. The inflammatory response to the administered tetrahydrozoline was significantly lower with complete reparation of gingival tissue. Taking this fact into account it is recommended as a potential retraction agent.

References

Wustmann B, Rehmann P, Trost D, Balkenhol M. Effect of different retraction and impression techniques on the marginal fit of crowns. J Dent 2008; 36(7): 508−12.

Bowels WH, Tardy SJ, Vahadi A. Evaluation of new gingival re-traction agents. J Dent Res 1991; 70(11): 1447−9.

Polat NT, Ozdemir AK, Turgut M. Effects of gingival retraction materials on gingival blood flow. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 20(1): 57−62.

Donovan TE, Gandara BK, Nemetz H. Review and survey of me-dicaments used with gingival retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53(4): 525−31.

Al Hamad KQ, Azar WZ, Alwaeli HA, Said KN. A clinical study on the effects of cordless and conventional retraction tech-niques on the gingival and periodontal health. J Clin Periodon-tol. 2008; 35(12): 1053−8.

Liu CM, Huang FM, Yang LC, Chou LS, Chou MY, Chang YC. Cytotoxic effects of gingival retraction cords on human gingi-val fibroblasts in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 2004; 31(4): 368−72.

Kopač I, Strele M, Marion L. Electron microscopic analysis of the effects of chemical retraction agents on cultured rat kerati-nocytes. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87(1): 51−6.

Csillag M, Nyiri G, Vag J, Fazekas A. Dose-related effects of epinephrine on human gingival blood flow and cervicular fluid production used as a soaking solution for chemo-mechanical tissue retraction. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97(1): 6−11.

Bader JD, Bonito AJ, Shugars DA. A systematic review of car-diovascular effects of epinephrine on hypertensive dental pa-tients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002; 93(6): 647−53.

Feng J, Aboyoussef H, Weiner S, Singh S, Jandinski J. The effect of gingival retraction procedures on periodontal indices and cer-vicular fluid cytokine levels: A pilot study. J Prosthodont 2006; 15(2): 108−12.

Beier US, Kranewitter R, Dumfahrt H. Quality of impressions af-ter use of magic FoamCord gingival retraction system-a clinical study of 269 abutment teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22(2): 143−7.

Jokstad A. Clinical trial of gingival retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81(3): 258−61.

Brand HS, Abraham-Inpijn L. Cardiovascular responses induced by dental treatment. Eur J Oral Sci 1996; 104(3): 245−52.

Felpel LP. A review of pharmacotherapeutics for prosthetic dentistry: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77(3): 285−92.

de Gennaro GG, Landesman HM, Calhoun JE, Martinoff JT. A comparison of gingival inflammation to retraction cords. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 47(4): 384−6.

Harrison JD. Effect of retraction materials on the gingival sul-cus epithelium. J Prosthet Dent 1961; 11(3): 514−21.

Ramadan FA, Elsadeek M, Hassanein ES. Histopathologic re-sponse of gingival tissues to hemodent and aluminum chloride solutions as tissue displacement materials. Egypt Dent J 1972; 18(4): 337−52.

Tardy SJ, Bowles WH, Chambless IA. Clinical evaluation of visine as gingival retraction agent. J Dent Res 1990; 69: 250−4.

Kopač I, Cvetko E, Marion L. Gingival inflammatory response induced by chemical retraction agents in beagle dogs. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15(1): 14−9.

Kopač I, Cvetko E, Pavlica Z, Marion L. Gingival tissue inflamma-tory response following treatment with chemical retraction agents in Beagle dogs. Pflugers Arch 2001; 442(6 Suppl 1): R145−6.

Land MF, Rosenstiel SF, Sandrik JL. Disturbance of dentinal smear layer by acidic haemostatic agents. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72(1): 4−7.

Nowakowska D, Sacko J, Kulbacka J, Choromanska A, Raszewski Z. Cytotoxic potential of vasoconstrictor experimental gingival agents: in vitro study on primary human gingival fibroblasts. Folia Biol (Praha) 2012; 58(1): 37−43.

Nowakowska D, Sacko J, Kulbacka J, Choromanska A. Dynamic oxidoreductive potential of astringent retraction agents. Folia Biol. (Praha) 2010; 56(6): 263−8.

Kostić M, Krunić N, Najman S. Contemporary aspect of dental materials biocompatibility examination tests. Acta Stomatol Naissi 2010; 26: 1007−16.