Aim: To evaluate the biocompatibility of GuttaFlow Bioseal and CeraSeal compared with AH Plus by histological and immunohistochemical analysis.
Materials and methods: Twenty-four male Wistar albino rats were randomly assigned to three groups according to the evaluation periods, each group contained 8 rats, group (A): for evaluation on day 7, group (B): for evaluation on day 14 and group (C): for evaluation on day 30. Each rat received 3 implants of polyethylene tubes containing the tested sealers and kept in place for 7,14 and 30 days. The polyethylene tubes were excised with the surrounding tissues to be prepared for histological evaluation by hematoxylin and eosin stain to confirm the inflammatory response. Also, immunohistochemical analysis was performed by assessment of the prevalence of immunopositivity of Interleukin 6 (IL-6) and assessment of the immunostaining intensity. All the obtained data from the computer image analysis were statistically evaluated. The ANOVA (analysis of variance) test was used to compare the mean values between different groups. Student t-test was used to compare mean % values between 2 groups to evaluate the significance (if present) between all groups.
Results: Regarding the biocompatibility evaluation after 7 days of implantation, AH Plus showed a severe inflammatory response histologically along with elevated immune-expression of IL-6, followed by CeraSeal and then GuttaFlow Bioseal. Inflammation decreased in the 14 and 30-day time intervals in all tested groups.
Conclusion: CeraSeal is the most biocompatible endodontic sealer in comparison with GuttaFlow Bioseal and AH Plus.