Archives of oral biology · 2008
Homogenous amniotic membrane as a biological dressing for oral mucositis in rats: histomorphometric analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vilela-Goulart Maria das Graças, Teixeira Raquel Teodoro Santos, Rangel Daniela Coelho, Niccoli-Filho Walter, Gomes Mônica Fernandes
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Oral mucositis is a frequent and significant side effect of chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of the homogenous amniotic membrane (HAM) as a biological dressing for oral mucositis induced by 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in the labial fornix region of inferior incisors in rats.
METHODS: Sixty rats were divided into three groups: control (50% acetic acid), 5-FU (50% acetic acid and 5-fluorouracil-induced oral mucositis) and 5-FU+HAM (50% acetic acid and 5-fluorouracil-induced oral mucositis, and treated with HAM). Histological analyses were done 3, 7, 14 and 21 days after applying the acetic acid.
RESULTS: HAM showed not only no signs of rejection as well as an excellent tissue adherence to the ulcerated surface. Histomorphometric analysis indicated a lower quantity of inflammatory cells in the 5-FU+HAM group in all periods when compared to the other groups and there was a statistically significant difference in the 3- and 7-day periods (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that HAM was biocompatible with great adhesive power to the ulcerated surface, accelerated the healing process and exhibited anti-inflammatory activity. Further studies should be done to investigate the potential benefits of this material in clinical trials. HAM could lead to improved results as a biological dressing in treatment and management of oral mucositis in patients submitted to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy.
METHODS: Sixty rats were divided into three groups: control (50% acetic acid), 5-FU (50% acetic acid and 5-fluorouracil-induced oral mucositis) and 5-FU+HAM (50% acetic acid and 5-fluorouracil-induced oral mucositis, and treated with HAM). Histological analyses were done 3, 7, 14 and 21 days after applying the acetic acid.
RESULTS: HAM showed not only no signs of rejection as well as an excellent tissue adherence to the ulcerated surface. Histomorphometric analysis indicated a lower quantity of inflammatory cells in the 5-FU+HAM group in all periods when compared to the other groups and there was a statistically significant difference in the 3- and 7-day periods (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that HAM was biocompatible with great adhesive power to the ulcerated surface, accelerated the healing process and exhibited anti-inflammatory activity. Further studies should be done to investigate the potential benefits of this material in clinical trials. HAM could lead to improved results as a biological dressing in treatment and management of oral mucositis in patients submitted to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy.