Biocompatibility of new bioactive resin composite versus calcium silicate cements: an animal study

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the biocompatibility of three bioactive materials, namely ACTIVA bioactive restorative resin composite, iRoot BP plus and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) Angelus-HP. METHODS: Seventy-five Wistar male rats were subjected to subcutaneous implantation of four polyethylene tubes; one empty tube was used as control (Group 1), and the other tubes were filled with ACTIVA (Group 2), iRoot BP (Group 3) and MTA-HP (Group 4). Then, the rats were subdivided into 3 groups according to the sacrification time into one, two and 4 weeks (n = 25 rats). Tissue specimens were submitted to histopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of α-SMA and caspase 3. RESULTS: The one-way Anova test revealed that ACTIVA group exhibited minimal inflammation in comparison to calcium silicate cements (iRoot BP and MTA-HP groups). iRoot BP group significantly revealed a more severe degree of chronic inflammation in comparison to other groups (P < 0.05). ACTIVA group showed marked regression of inflammation and fibrosis comparable to the control, while iRoot BP group revealed remarkable fibrosis and calcification, with less degrees in MTA-HP group (P < 0.05). Immunostaining of both α-SMA and caspase 3 revealed lower indexes in ACTIVA group consistent with the control (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ACTIVA showed a higher degree of biocompatibility to subcutaneous tissues in comparison to both iRoot BP and MTA-HP cements in regard to decrease the intensity of inflammation, with subsequent fibrous connective tissue remodeling and better healing patterns. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Preliminary data suggests that the application of ACTIVA in retrograde fillings.