OBJECTIVES: This study compared the intraosseous biocompatibility of Vitremer, a new hydrophilic glass-ionomer cement, to that of Super EBA. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-two New Zealand rabbits were anesthetized, the mandibular bone exposed, and two holes were drilled through the cortical plate. The materials were loaded into silicone carriers and inserted into the mandibles. Eleven rabbits were killed 4 weeks after implantation, 11 animals after 12 weeks. The mandibles were prepared with standard histologic procedures; the tissue reactions were graded from none to very severe. RESULTS: At 4 weeks Vitremer implants showed very slight to slight reactions, and the Super EBA implants showed slight reactions and one moderate reaction with no significant difference between the two materials. At 12 weeks, bone healing had occurred, despite the persistence of some fibrous tissue interposition. The reactions were classified as none to very slight for Vitremer and very slight to slight for EBA. Statistical analysis showed better results for Vitremer at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: The intraosseous biocompatibility of Vitremer was similar at 4 weeks and superior at 12 weeks to that of Super EBA. Its other properties should be evaluated before considering its use in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the intraosseous biocompatibility of Vitremer, a new hydrophilic glass-ionomer cement, to that of Super EBA. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-two New Zealand rabbits were anesthetized, the mandibular bone exposed, and two holes were drilled through the cortical plate. The materials were loaded into silicone carriers and inserted into the mandibles. Eleven rabbits were killed 4 weeks after implantation, 11 animals after 12 weeks. The mandibles were prepared with standard histologic procedures; the tissue reactions were graded from none to very severe. RESULTS: At 4 weeks Vitremer implants showed very slight to slight reactions, and the Super EBA implants showed slight reactions and one moderate reaction with no significant difference between the two materials. At 12 weeks, bone healing had occurred, despite the persistence of some fibrous tissue interposition. The reactions were classified as none to very slight for Vitremer and very slight to slight for EBA. Statistical analysis showed better results for Vitremer at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: The intraosseous biocompatibility of Vitremer was similar at 4 weeks and superior at 12 weeks to that of Super EBA. Its other properties should be evaluated before considering its use in clinical practice.