Submitted: 15 Dec 2008
Accepted: 25 Feb 2013
ePublished: 25 Feb 2013
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

J Iran Dent Assoc. 2008;20(3): 213-218.
  Abstract View: 23

Research

Biocompatibility of Zoliran and Zonalin: An experimental study

Farahnaz Arbabzadeh, S.Mohamma Razavi*, Poran Samimi, Maryam Chaharkameh
*Corresponding Author: Email: e.mail:razavi@dnt.mui.ac.ir

Abstract

Biocompatibility of Zoliran and Zonalin: An experimental study

Dr. Arbabzadeh F.,1 Dr. Razavi M.,2 Dr. Samimi P.,3 Dr. Chaharkameh M.4

1Assistant Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Isfahan, Iran. 2Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Pathology, Faculty of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Isfahan, Iran. 3Associate Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Isfahan, Iran. 4Dentist.

(Received 22 Nov, 2007 Accepted 26 July, 2008)

Abstract

Background & Aim: Biocompatibility of dental materials can help in their proper handling and usage in dental clinics. Zonalin is a foreign brand, reinforced Zinc Oxide Eugenol in two forms of liquid and powder. Zoliran is a similar compound produced in Iran. The purpose of this in-vivo study was to compare the biocompatibility of the two cements by using an animal model.

Materials and Methods: This experimental study was conducted using twelve 3-4 month-old female rats weighing 150-200 grams. The two cements (Zonalin and Zoliran) were implanted into subcutaneous tissues of each rat. Zonalin was implanted in two sites on the left side of the body and Zoliran in two sites on the right side. The area in the center of the four sites was used as the control site, which was opened and sutured without any implantation. Biopsies were taken after 3, 15, 30 and 60 days intervals (3 rats were used at a time). The tissues were fixed in buffered formalin, sectioned and stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin according to standard methods.

Results: No considerable differences in the inflammatory responses were observed between the two materials at all time intervals. Similarly, no significant tissue response was noted for each material over time. The inflammatory response at test locations was always higher than the control sites at all time intervals.

Conclusion: Although mild inflammation was observed, both materials under investigation appeared to be biocompatible and well tolerated.

Key word: Zonalin, Zoliran – Biocompatibility.

Corresponding Author: Dr. Razavi M., Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Pathology, Faculty of Dentistry, Isfahan Univercity of Medical sciences. Isfahan, Iran.

e.mail: razavi@ dnt.mui.ac.ir

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 24

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 0

Your browser does not support the canvas element.