Article Options
Categories


Search


Advanced Search



This service is provided on D[e]nt Publishing standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy. To enquire about a licence to reproduce material from endodonticsjournal.com and/or JofER, click here.
This website is published by D[e]nt Publishing Ltd, Phoenix AZ, US.
D[e]nt Publishing is part of the specialist publishing group Oral Science & Business Media Inc.

Creative Commons License


Recent Articles RSS:
Subscribe to recent articles RSS
or Subscribe to Email.

Blog RSS:
Subscribe to blog RSS
or Subscribe to Email.


Azerbaycan Saytlari

 »  Home  »  Endodontic Articles 9  »  Inflammatory response to different endodontic irrigating solutions
Inflammatory response to different endodontic irrigating solutions
Results.



Cellular migration to peritoneal cavity.
The response to the injection of the solutions into the peritoneal cavity was evaluated by the number of neutrophils (Fig.1) and mononuclear cells (Fig. 2) at 4, 24, 48 and 168 h after the injection. At 4 and 24 h post-injection, the number of neutrophils was similar in all groups (P > 0.05). The chlorhexidine group had a similar number of neutrophils at all time periods as the control group. There was a significant increase in the number of neutrophils in the 0.5% sodium hypochlorite group from 48 to168 h (P < 0.05). The migration of mononuclear cells into the peritoneal cavity was similar in all groups at 4 and 24 h post-injection (P > 0.05), and the chlorhexidine group was similar to the control group at all time periods. There was an increase in neutrophils from 48 to168 h post-injection (P < 0.05) for the0.5% sodium hypochlorite solution.

Protein leakage to periodontal cavity.
There was a significant increase in protein leakage in the groups injected with 0.5% sodium hypochlorite compared to the PBS group at 4-48 h (P < 0.05). Protein leakage was similar for 2% chlorhexidine and PBS at all time periods (P > 0.05) (Fig. 3).

Figure 1. Migration of neutrophils into the peritoneal cavity of mice at different time periods induced by the injection of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite, 2% digluconate chlorhexidine and phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Results are reported as mean +SEM.

Migration of neutrophils into the peritoneal cavity of mice at different time periods induced by the injection
*Statistically different (P < 0.05).
**Statistically different (P < 0.01).


Figure 2. Migration of mononuclear cells into the peritoneal cavity of mice at different time periods induced by the injection of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite, 2% digluconate chlorhexidine and phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Results are reported as mean +SEM.

Migration of mononuclear cells into the peritoneal cavity of mice at different time periods induced by the injection
*Statistically different (P < 0.05).
**Statistically different (P < 0.01).


Figure 3. Protein leakage into the peritoneal cavity of mice at different time periods induced by the injection of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite, 2% digluconate chlorhexidine and phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Results are reported as mean +SEM.

Protein leakage into the peritoneal cavity of mice at different time periods induced by the injection of 0.5%sodium hypochlorite, 2% digluconate chlorhexidine and phosphate buffered saline
*Statistically different (P < 0.05).
**Statistically different (P < 0.01).