AIM: To assess the nociceptive and antinociceptive effects of white mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA) using the orofacial formalin test in rats. METHODOLOGY: Rats (n = 10 in each group) were separately injected into the ipsilateral upper lip with either 40 microL of a 2.5% formalin solution and eugenol (50 mg kg(-1)) or WMTA (5, 10 and 20 mg dissolved in 0.2 mL saline) alone. In a second experiment to evaluate antinociception effects, 15 min prior to formalin injection, rats were pre-treated with either white ProRoot MTA (20 mg dissolved in 0.2 mL saline) or eugenol. The time each rat spent rubbing the injected site with its paw, as an index of nociception, was recorded for a period of 45 min. RESULTS: Administration of 40 microL white ProRoot MTA (5, 10 and 20 mg per 0.2 mL) alone did not produce any significant nociceptive response. Moreover, prior treatment with WMTA caused significant (P < 0.001) inhibition of formalin-induced nociception. Injection of eugenol (50 mg kg(-1)) provoked the first phase of a nociceptive response, although its intensity was reduced compared with that produced by formalin. Pre-treatment with eugenol significantly (P < 0.0001) inhibited the induction of nociception by formalin. Comparison of the behavioural responses observed in WMTA and eugenol-treated rats alone or in combination with formalin revealed that WMTA did not only induce pain behaviour but also prevented formalin-induced nociception. CONCLUSION: White mineral trioxide aggregate, when compared with eugenol, was more effective in treating nociceptive pain in the orofacial formalin test.
AIM: To assess the nociceptive and antinociceptive effects of white mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA) using the orofacial formalin test in rats. METHODOLOGY:Rats (n = 10 in each group) were separately injected into the ipsilateral upper lip with either 40 microL of a 2.5% formalin solution and eugenol (50 mg kg(-1)) or WMTA (5, 10 and 20 mg dissolved in 0.2 mL saline) alone. In a second experiment to evaluate antinociception effects, 15 min prior to formalin injection, rats were pre-treated with either white ProRoot MTA (20 mg dissolved in 0.2 mL saline) or eugenol. The time each rat spent rubbing the injected site with its paw, as an index of nociception, was recorded for a period of 45 min. RESULTS: Administration of 40 microL white ProRoot MTA (5, 10 and 20 mg per 0.2 mL) alone did not produce any significant nociceptive response. Moreover, prior treatment with WMTA caused significant (P < 0.001) inhibition of formalin-induced nociception. Injection of eugenol (50 mg kg(-1)) provoked the first phase of a nociceptive response, although its intensity was reduced compared with that produced by formalin. Pre-treatment with eugenol significantly (P < 0.0001) inhibited the induction of nociception by formalin. Comparison of the behavioural responses observed in WMTA and eugenol-treated rats alone or in combination with formalin revealed that WMTA did not only induce pain behaviour but also prevented formalin-induced nociception. CONCLUSION: White mineral trioxide aggregate, when compared with eugenol, was more effective in treating nociceptive pain in the orofacial formalin test.