The effect of different vasoconstrictors and local anesthetic solutions on substance P expression in human dental pulp.
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of the infiltration injection of different vasoconstrictor and anesthetic solutions on substance P (SP) expression in healthy human dental pulp. Thirty pulp samples were obtained from healthy upper premolars in which extraction was indicated for orthodontic reasons and were randomly assigned into three groups of 10 samples each: 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine (Lido group), 3% Prilocaine with 1:200000 felypressin (Prilo group); and 4% Prilocaine without vasoconstrictor (Prilo-no-VC group). All teeth were extracted 10 minutes after anesthetic application. Pulp samples were processed and SP was measured by radioimmunoassay. SP expression for the Lido, Prilo, and Prilo-no-VC groups were 616.49, 663.76, and 760.79 pmol/mg pulp tissue, respectively. Analysis of variance showed statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.001). Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post hoc tests showed significant statistical differences between the Prilo-no-VC group and the Lido group (p < 0.01) and between the Prilo-no-VC group and the Prilo group (p < 0.05). It can be concluded that infiltration injection of local anesthetics with vasoconstrictor attenuate SP expression in human dental pulp.
- SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objectives. The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of glass ionomer and adhesive cements on SP expression in healthy human dental pulp. Study Design. Forty pulp samples were obtained from healthy premolars where extraction was indicated for orthodontic reasons. In thirty of these premolars a Class V cavity preparation was performed and teeth were equally divided in three groups: Experimental Group I: Glass Ionomer cement was placed in the cavity. Experimental Group II: Adhesive Cement was placed in the cavity. Positive control group: Class V cavities only. The remaining ten healthy premolars where extracted without treatment and served as a negative control group. All pulp samples were processed and SP was measured by radioimmunoassay. Results. Greater SP expression was found in the adhesive cement group, followed by the glass ionomer and the positive control groups. The lower SP values were for the negative control group. ANOVA showed statistically significant differences between groups (p<0.0001). Tukey HSD post hoc tests showed statistically significant differences in SP expression between negative control group and the 3 other groups (p<0.01). Differences between the cavity-only group and the two experimental groups were also statistically significant (p<0.05 and p<0.01 respectively). There is also a statistically significant difference between the two experimental groups (p<0.01). Conclusion. These findings suggest that adhesive cements provoke a greater SP expression when compared with glass ionomer.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal 05/2013; · 1.02 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Current evidence supports the central role of neuropeptides in the molecular mechanisms underlying dental pain. In particular, substance P, a neuropeptide produced in neuron cell bodies localised in dorsal root and trigeminal ganglia, contributes to the transmission and maintenance of noxious stimuli and inflammatory processes. The major role of substance P in the onset of dental pain and inflammation is increasingly being recognised. Well-grounded experimental and clinical observations have documented an increase in substance P concentration in patients affected by caries, pulpitis, or granulomas and in those undergoing standard orthodontic or orthodontic/dental care procedures. This paper focuses on the role of substance P in the induction and maintenance of inflammation and dental pain, in order to define future lines of research for the evaluation of therapeutic strategies aimed at modulating the complex effects of this mediator in oral tissues.Mediators of Inflammation 01/2012; 2012:951920. · 3.88 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AIM: To quantify the effect of two single-file reciprocating root canal preparation systems on Substance P (SP) and Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) expression in healthy human periodontal ligament (PDL). METHODOLOGY: Forty PDL samples were obtained from healthy premolars where extraction was indicated for orthodontic reasons. Prior to extraction, 20 of these premolars were divided equally in two groups, and then, root canals were prepared using one of two different single-file systems: WaveOne and Reciproc. Ten premolars were prepared with hand files and served as a positive control group. The remaining 10 premolars where extracted without treatment and served as a negative control group. All PDL samples were processed, and SP and CGRP were measured by radioimmunoassay. RESULTS: Greater SP and CGRP expression were found in the hand instrumentation group (1.220 pmol SP and 0.084 pmol CGRP per mg of PDL), followed by the WaveOne group (0.908 pmol SP and 0.046 pmol CGRP per mg of PDL) and the Reciproc group (0.511 pmol SP and 0.022 pmol CGRP per mg of PDL). The lower SP and CGRP values were associated with the intact control group (0.453 pmol SP and 0.018 pmol CGRP per mg of PDL). The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences between groups (P < 0.001). Post hoc Tukey HSD tests revealed significant differences in SP and CGRP expression between intact teeth in the control group and all the other groups (P < 0.001) except with the Reciproc group (P = 0.165 and P = 0.42 for SP and CGRP, respectively). Hand instrumentation was associated with significant differences with all the other groups (P < 0.001). Differences between the WaveOne and Reciproc groups were also significant (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Substance P and CGRP expression in PDL cells increased when teeth were prepared with WaveOne as well as with hand instrumentation. Reciproc maintained SP and CGRP levels in line with the negative control group.International Endodontic Journal 09/2012; · 2.05 Impact Factor