In general , studies suggest that root canal sealers elicit mild to severe toxic effects and that several factors may influence biocompatibility , e.g. , material setting condition and time , material concentration , and type of exposure .
4 ) Conclusions : The available evidence shows that root canal sealers exhibit variable toxic potential at the cellular and tissue level .
However , the method ological heterogeneity among studies included in this systematic review and the somewhat conflicting results do not allow a conclusion on which type of sealer presents higher biocompatibility .
( 1 ) Aim : To perform a systematic review of the literature on the biocompatibility of  root canal sealers  that encompasses the various types of sealers that are commercially available as well as both in vitro and in vivo evidence . (
The histological effects of four endodontic sealers implanted in the oral mucosa: submucous injection versus implant in polyethylene tubes.
AIM The aim of this study was to evaluate pigmentation and tissue response to four endodontic sealers placed in the oral mucosa of rabbits by either submucous injection or implant in polyethylene tubes . METHODOLOGY Thirty white New Zeal and rabbits were divided r and omly into two groups of eight for N-Rickert and AH-26 , and two groups of seven for Fillcanal and Sealer 2 6 . On the right side of the filter , corresponding to the gingivo-labial sulcus in humans , the sealer was injected ; on the left side the sealer was placed within a polyethylene tube and implanted . Direct clinical observations were made at 30 , 60 and 90 days . The animals were then sacrificed for histological analysis . RESULTS After 60 days of observation N-Rickert and AH-26 produced tattoos that became larger by 90 days . Submucous injection produced larger and more numerous pigmentation , when compared to implant in polyethylene tubes . N-Rickert sealer displayed larger and more numerous tattoos when compared to AH-26 . Histological analysis showed no differences between the two methods of implantation . All sealers elicited some kind of inflammatory response ; the most irritant was Fillcanal , followed by N-Rickert and AH-26 . Sealer 26 elicited a mild reaction only . CONCLUSIONS Under the conditions of this study there was no relationship between the method of implantation and the tissue response ; the silver-containing sealers produced pigmentation , and the concentration of silver influenced the quantity and size of the tattoos . The sealers elicited various responses when in direct contact with the surrounding tissues : the calcium hydroxide-containing sealer had enhanced healing when compared to the other sealers
In general , studies suggest that root canal sealers elicit mild to severe toxic effects and that several factors may influence biocompatibility , e.g. , material setting condition and time , material concentration , and type of exposure .
4 ) Conclusions : The available evidence shows that root canal sealers exhibit variable toxic potential at the cellular and tissue level .
However , the method ological heterogeneity among studies included in this systematic review and the somewhat conflicting results do not allow a conclusion on which type of sealer presents higher biocompatibility .
( 1 ) Aim : To perform a systematic review of the literature on the biocompatibility of  root canal sealers  that encompasses the various types of sealers that are commercially available as well as both in vitro and in vivo evidence . (