Odgovor gingivalnog tkiva kunića na retrakciona sredstva i tetrahidrozolin
Sažetak
Uvod/Cilj. Retrakciona sredstva za privremeno vertikalno i lateralno povlačenje gingivalnog tkiva i kontrolu krvarenja i protoka tečnosti u gingivalnom sulkusu trebalo bi da imaju maksimalnu efikasnost bez ireverzibilnog oštećenja lokalnog tkiva i neželjenih sistemskih efekata. U istraživanju se krenulo od pretpostavke da je tetrahidrozolin biološki prihvatljivije sredstvo za gingivalnu retrakciju od komercijalno dostupnih preparata. Cilj rada bio je komparativna analiza inflamatornog odgovora na dejstvo retrakcionih materijala i tetrahidrozolina. Metode. Istraživan je efekat retrakcionih sredstava na bazi aluminijum-hlorida i epinefrina, kao i tetrahidrozolin-hidrohlorida na gingivalno tkivo kunića. Vreme primene ispitivanog materijala u gingivalni sulkus kunića iznosilo je 7 min. Nakon opservacionog perioda od 1 h, jednog, sedam i 30 dana vršena je biopsija gingivalnog tkiva i dobijeni preparati su mikroskopski analizirani. Rezultati. Utvrđeno je reverzibilno oštećenje tkiva gingive izazvanog lokalnom aplikacijom retrakcionih sredstava na bazi aluminijum hlorida i epinefrina. Njihova upotreba, nakon 1-dnevnog i 7-dnevnog opservacionog perioda, dovela je do akutnog inflamatornog odgovora. Nakon 30 dana uočena je reparacija oštećenog tkiva. Primena tetrahidrozolina imala je za rezultat značajno slabiji inflamatorni odgovor. Zaključak. Upotreba retrakcionih rastvora dovela je do akutnog inflamatornog odgovora tkiva gingive, koji je vremenom poprimio hronični karakter. Inflamatorni odgovor sa primenom tetrahidrozolina bio je značajno slabiji sa potpunim oporavkom gingivalnog tkiva. S obzirom na to tetrahidrozolin se može preporučiti kao potencijalni retrakcioni agens.
Reference
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.
