New embedding medium for sectioning undecalcified bone

Department of Anatomy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin.
Biotechnic and Histochemistry (Impact Factor: 1.44). 03/2006; 81(2-3):99-103. DOI: 10.1080/10520290600834136
Source: PubMed


Methylmethacrylate (MMA) is the most commonly used embedding medium for sectioning undecalcified bone; however, a number of problems exist with its use in a research laboratory. MMA requires a long infiltration time and temperature control, and it reacts with many polymers. We used Kleer Set resin as an alternative embedding medium for sectioning undecalcified bone specimens. Fluorochrome labeled bone specimens were sectioned transversely using a ground section technique and longitudinally on a sledge macrotome. The slides were viewed using both transmitted light and epifluorescence microscopy. High quality sections were obtained using Kleer Set resin for both sectioning techniques. We have shown that this new embedding medium is simpler, safer, quicker to use and does not interfere with visualization of fluorochromes.

Download full-text


Available from: Sahar Mohsin, Apr 20, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The histological staining of bone tissue is of great value in identifying structural changes in human bone tissue when examined microscopically, and is therefore routinely used by clinical pathologists. However, for archaeological and other types of undecalcified dry bone tissue, histochemical staining is currently not widely used. The purpose of this paper is to describe a new method developed for the staining of undecalcified archaeological bone which may be a valuable addition to the palaeopathological toolkit. Sections were ground by hand and stained with haematoxylin and eosin. The microstructure and architecture of the stained sections become clearly visible without compromising total tissue envisioning. In addition, staining enhances differentiation between taphonomically affected and non-affected bone tissue. This paper accordingly describes a reproducible stepwise method for the production of ground stained sections. An additional troubleshooting paragraph discusses the most often encountered problems and provides solutions. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 07/2012; 22(4). DOI:10.1002/oa.1208 · 0.95 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The histological processing of teeth is highly complicated because of containing both mineralized hard tissues and soft tissues. Depending on the type of decalcification agents used in processing, mild-to-severe deterioration in the tissue structure and inadequacies on clear staining of details by the histological stain may be observed. This study aims to compare the histological staining differences in the preparations from decalcified and undecalcified tooth roots by three different embedding materials and techniques. Following extraction, human single-rooted teeth crowns were cut off and roots were placed in 10% buffered neutral formalin. After fixation, roots were divided into two groups. One part of samples was decalcified in formic acid solution and the other was remained undecalcified. Decalcified roots were embedded in paraffin and glycol methacrylate (GMA)-based resin and undecalcified roots were embedded in methyl methacrylate (MMA)-based resin. Sections from all groups were stained with hematoxylin and eosin. The groups were compared in terms of general staining, brightness, density, density of the base stain, general morphology of cells, nuclear/cytoplasmic contrast, distinguish ability of pulp, odontoblast layer, predentin and dentin, preservation and traceability of dentinal tubule. In the preparations which were embedded into the MMA-based embedding material, an output lower than the paraffin group buthigher than the GMA-embedded group was provided. As a result, the best histological detail was obtained from the decalcified, paraffin-embedded sections.
    Folia Histochemica et Cytobiologica 01/2013; 51(4):286-91. DOI:10.5603/FHC.2013.0039 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • Source