The Journal of Dental Sciences and Education deals with General Dentistry, Pediatric Dentistry, Restorative Dentistry, Orthodontics, Oral diagnosis and DentomaxilloFacial Radiology, Endodontics, Prosthetic Dentistry, Periodontology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Oral Implantology, Dental Education and other dentistry fields and accepts articles on these topics. Journal of Dental Science and Education publishes original research articles, review articles, case reports, editorial commentaries, letters to the editor, educational articles, and conference/meeting announcements.

EndNote Style
Original Article
Evaluation of biocompatibility of four different one-step self-etching adhesives by animal experimental method
Aims: The success of materials used in dentistry is closely related to their biological safety. In recent years, there has been growing concern about the biocompatibility of self-etch adhesives, which are frequently used in restorative dental treatment. The aim of this study is to compare the biocompatibility of four different single-stage self-etch adhesive materials (Prime & Bond One Select, Optibond All-in-One, Clearfil Universal Bond, and Single Bond Universal) with the animal test method and evaluate them histopathologically.
Methods: The experimental materials were polymerized by filling 10 mm-long, 2 mm-diameter polyurethane tubes. For each adhesive, 21 tubes were used. The tubes were placed in the subcutaneous pockets formed by four different incisions in the backs of 21 adult male albino rats. On the 7th, 30th, and 60th days, rats were randomly divided into three groups. At the end of these durations, the tube and the surrounding 2 cm2 of tissue were excised together. The sections were taken into preparation and stained with hematoxylen and eosin. The severity of inflammation, inflammatory cell count, and fibrous capsule thickness were evaluated histologically by light microscopy.
Results: On the 7th day of samples, lesions due to acute inflammation, edema, and PMNL infiltration were observed. In the 30th-day samples, it was observed that inflammation decreased against all materials and fibrocollagen tissue increased. On the 60th day, granulation and fibrous tissue increased due to regeneration and reparation processes. On the 60th day, the number of inflammatory cells decreased significantly compared to the 7th day. When the fibrous tissue formation was evaluated, it was found that the 7th day score was significantly lower than the 60th day score.
Conclusion: The severity of the inflammatory reaction at the beginning of all materials can be explained by the effects of residual monomer release and surgical trauma.

1. Hashimoto M and et al. Fluid movement across the resin-dentininterface during and after bonding. J Dent Res. 2004;83(11):843-848.
2. Van Meerbeek B and et al. Adhesion to enamel and dentin:currentstatus and future challenges. Operative Dentistry. 2003;28(3):215-35.
3. Batra C. Nagpal R. Tyagi SP. Singh UP. Manuja N. In vitro bondingeffectiveness of three different one-step self-etch adhesives withadditional enamel etching. J Investig Clin Dent 2014;5(3):226- 236.
4. Stangel. I.. Ellis. T.H..Sacher. E. Adhesion to tooth structure mediatedby contemporary bonding systems. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51(3):677-694.
5. Tjäderhane L and et al. Strategies to prevent hydrolytic degradation ofthe hybrid layer-a review. Dental Materials. 2013;29(10):999-1011.
6. Süsgün Yıldırım Z. Bakır Ş. Bakır E. Foto E. Evaluation of Cytotoxicityof Five Different One-step Self-Etching Adhesives in Cell CultureMedium. Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry. 2018;16(6):525-532.
7. Atalayın Ç. Tezel H. Ergücü Z. Rezin Esaslı Dental MateryallerinSitotoksisitesine Genel Bir Bakış. EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg 2016;37(2):47-53.
8. Murray PE. Smith AJ. Garcia-Godoy F. Lumley PJ. Comparison ofoperative procedure variables on pulpal viability in an ex vivo model.Int Endod J. 2008;41(5):389-400.
9. Wataha JC. Principles of biocompatibility for dental practioners. JProsth Dent 2001;86:203-209.
10. Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials2008;29:2941-2953.
11. Cao T. Saw TY. Heng BC. Liu H. Yap AUJ. Ng ML. Comparison ofdifferent test models for the assesment of cytotoxicity of compositeresins. Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2005;25:101-108.
12. Moharamzadeh K. Brook IM. Noort RV. Biocompatibility of Resin-based Dental Materials. Materials 2009;2(2):514-548.
13. St. John KR. Biocompatibility of dental materials. Dent Clin North Am2007;51(3):747-760.
14. Geurtsen W. Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials. Crit.rev. oral biol. med. 2000;11(3):333-355.
15. Moysés MR. Lopes WL. Pereira AAC. Riberio JCR. Dias SC. PereiraLJ. Biocompatibility of the Prime & Bond 2.1. Prime & Bond NTand Scothbond MP Primer adhesive systems. Braz. J. Oral Sci.2006;5(18):1079-84.
16. Ferracane JL. Resin composite--state of the art. Dent Mater2011;27(1):29-38.
17. Van Landuyt KL and et al. Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials.2007;28(26):3757-3785.
18. Modena KC and et al. Cytotoxicity and biocompatibility of direct andindirect pulp capping materials. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009;17(6):544-554.
19. Bagis B. Atilla P. Cakar N. Hasanreisoglu U. Immunohistochemicalevaluation of endothelial cell adhesion molecules in human dentalpulp:effects of tooth preparation and adhesive application. Arch. OralBiol. 2007;52:705-711.
20. Tadin A. Gavic L. Galic N. Biocompatibility of Dental Adhesives.Intech Open Science. 2016;http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/64943.
21. Spahl W. Budzikiewicz H. Geurtsen W. Determination of leachablecomponents from four commercial dental composites by gas and liquidchromatography/mass spectrometry. J Dent. 1998;26(2):137-145.
22. Mjör IA. Practice-based dental research. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34(12):913-920.
23. Hebling J. Giro EM. Costa CA. Human pulp response after an adhesivesystem application in deep cavities. J Dent. 1999;27(8):557-564.
24. Alanko K. Susitaival P. Jolanki R. Kanerva L. Occupational skindiseases among dental nurses. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50(2):77-82.
25. Wada H. Tarumi H. Imazato S. Narimatsu M. Ebisu S. In vitroestrogenicity of resin composites. J Dent Res 2004;83(3):222-226.
26. Goldberg M. In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resincomponents:a review. Clin Oral Invest. 2008;12(1):1-8.
27. Kleinsasser NH. Schmid K. Sassen AW. Harréus UA. StaudenmaierR. Folwaczny M. Glas J RFC and genotoxic effects of resin monomersin human salivary gland tissue and lymphocytes as assessed by thesingle cell microgel electrophoresis. (comet) assay. Biomaterials.2006;27(9):1762-70.
28. Al-Hiyyasat AS. Darmani H. Elbetieha AM. Leached components fromdental composites and their effects on fertility of female mice. Eur JOral Sci 2004;112(3):267-272.
29. Polydorou O. Trittler R. Hellwig E. Kummerer K. Elution of monomersfrom two conventional dental composite materials. Dental Materials2007;23(12):1535-1541.
30. Nowicka A. Parafiniuk M. Lipski M. Lichota D. Buczkowska-RadlinskaJ. Pulpo-dentin complex response after direct capping with self-etchadhesive systems. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2012;50(4):565-573.
31. Koliniotou-Koumpia. E.. Tziafas. D. Pulpal responses following directpulp capping of healthy dog teeth with dentine adhesive systems. JDent. 2005;33(8):639-647.
32. da Silva JM and et al. Effectiveness and biological compatibilityof different generations of dentin adhesives. Clin Oral Invest.2014;18(2):607-613.
33. Costa CAS. Teixeira HM. Nascimento BL. Hebling J. Biocompatibility ofTwo Current Adhesive Resins. Journal of Endodontics. 2000;26(9):512-516.
34. Omidi S. Javidi M. Zarei M. Mushakhian S. Jafarian A. SubcutaneousConnective Tissue Reaction to a New Nano Zinc-Oxide Eugenol Sealerin Rat Model. Iran. Endod. J. 2017;12(1):64-69.
35. Teixeira HM. Do Nascimento ABL. Hebling J. Costa CAS. In vivoevaluation of the biocompatibility of three current Bonding agents. J.Oral Rehabil. 2006;33(7):542-550.
36. Machado NP. Moysés MR. Pereira AAC. Pereira LJ. Ribeiro JCR.Dias SC. Study of dentinal adhesives compatibility using histologicalanalysis. Braz. J. Oral Sci.2007;6(20):1289-1294.
Volume 1, Issue 3, 2023
Page : 81-89