English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of this study was to compare the local and systemic effects of current pulp capping materials containing resin with those of traditional materials in an animal study. A total of 48 rats were used: a control group (n=12) (sub-control and negative control), a resin-containing group (n=18) (Calcimol LC, Theracal LC, Activa-BioActive Base/Liner), and a traditional group (n=18) (Biodentine, ProRoot MTA, Dycal). The materials which had been placed in polyethylene tubes were implanted in subcutaneous pockets. The rats were sacrificed at 1, 2, or 4 weeks. Evaluations were made of subcutaneous connective tissue, the left kidney, liver, and blood samples. Of all the study groups, MTA demonstrated biocompatibility at a level close to that of the control groups. Inflammation was observed to be more severe in resin-containing materials, but Activa Base/Liner showed a more successful local and systemic tissue response.

Are resin-containing pulp capping materials as reliable as traditional ones in terms of local and systemic biological effects?