Biocompatibility of new bioactive resin composite versus calcium silicate cements: an animal study

Abstract

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to compare the biocompatibility of three bioactive materials, namely ACTIVA bioactive restorative resin composite, iRoot BP plus and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) Angelus-HP. Methods Seventy-five Wistar male rats were subjected to subcutaneous implantation of four polyethylene tubes; one empty tube was used as control (Group 1), and the other tubes were filled with ACTIVA (Group 2), iRoot BP (Group 3) and MTA-HP (Group 4). Then, the rats were subdivided into 3 groups according to the sacrification time into one, two and 4 weeks (n = 25 rats). Tissue specimens were submitted to histopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of α-SMA and caspase 3. Results The one-way Anova test revealed that ACTIVA group exhibited minimal inflammation in comparison to calcium silicate cements (iRoot BP and MTA-HP groups). iRoot BP group significantly revealed a more severe degree of chronic inflammation in comparison to other groups (P < 0.05). ACTIVA group showed marked regression of inflammation and fibrosis comparable to the control, while iRoot BP group revealed remarkable fibrosis and calcification, with less degrees in MTA-HP group (P < 0.05). Immunostaining of both α-SMA and caspase 3 revealed lower indexes in ACTIVA group consistent with the control (P < 0.05). Conclusions ACTIVA showed a higher degree of biocompatibility to subcutaneous tissues in comparison to both iRoot BP and MTA-HP cements in regard to decrease the intensity of inflammation, with subsequent fibrous connective tissue remodeling and better healing patterns. Clinical significance Preliminary data suggests that the application of ACTIVA in retrograde fillings.

Keywords

• Bioactive composite
• Calcium silicate
• Caspase 3
• MTA-HP
• α-SMA