Limits...
Comparison of routine decalcification methods with microwave decalcification of bone and teeth.

Sangeetha R, Uma K, Chandavarkar V - J Oral Maxillofac Pathol (2013)

Bottom Line: The results also showed that the overall histological picture was good with EDTA and formic acid irrespective of the methods used.In the routine method, nitric acid gave poor cellular detail when compared with microwave method.Both formic acid and EDTA show good tissue preservation and staining efficacy irrespective of the method used.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Karnatak Lingayat Education Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The microwave oven has been used quite often for tissue processing, but there are very few studies describing its use in decalcification of bone or teeth. In this study we have attempted to decalcify bone and teeth using a microwave oven and compare the process and results with conventional decalcification methods.

Aims and objectives: The objectives of the study were to determine and compare routine decalcification with microwave decalcification of bone and teeth using 5% nitric acid, 5% formic acid, and 14% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) with respect to speed of decalcification, preservation of tissue structure and staining efficacy.

Materials and methods: In our study the total sample size used for both routine and microwave decalcification was 30 premolar teeth and 30 pieces of condyles. The three solutions were dilute nitric acid (5%), formic acid (5%), and EDTA (14%). Each set consisting of the same type of premolars and condyles in each of the three decalcifying solutions were used in both manual method and microwave method.

Results: The results in the present study confirmed the fact that the microwave method using nitric acid was indeed the fastest decalcifying method needing just about 2 days for condyle and 4 days for premolars, compared with routine decalcification. The results also showed that the overall histological picture was good with EDTA and formic acid irrespective of the methods used. In the routine method, nitric acid gave poor cellular detail when compared with microwave method.

Conclusion: With our study we conclude that microwave oven decalcification is faster than routine decalcification irrespective of the decalcifying agents used. The tissue preservation and staining efficacy was good in microwave nitric acid decalcification compared to routine nitric acid decalcification. Both formic acid and EDTA show good tissue preservation and staining efficacy irrespective of the method used.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

(a) Microwave oven with beaker containing decal solution and specimen. (b) Housing for microwave oven with outlet for fumes
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3927340&req=5

Figure 1: (a) Microwave oven with beaker containing decal solution and specimen. (b) Housing for microwave oven with outlet for fumes

Mentions: A domestic microwave oven (LG Intellowave, Model 1911HE) with a fixed rotary plate, maximum power output of 700 W and input voltage 230 V-50 HZ was used. A glass beaker containing 100 ml of distilled water was preheated for 5 s to warm up the magnetron. This was replaced by100 ml fresh distilled water and irradiated to maintain the temperature at around 41-43°C. This took 14 s. The glass beaker was placed at different points in the oven while irradiating it to determine the best position of the specimen during microwave decalcification, since the microwave oven used had a constant timing but not a constant temperature [Figure 1a and b].


Comparison of routine decalcification methods with microwave decalcification of bone and teeth.

Sangeetha R, Uma K, Chandavarkar V - J Oral Maxillofac Pathol (2013)

(a) Microwave oven with beaker containing decal solution and specimen. (b) Housing for microwave oven with outlet for fumes
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3927340&req=5

Figure 1: (a) Microwave oven with beaker containing decal solution and specimen. (b) Housing for microwave oven with outlet for fumes
Mentions: A domestic microwave oven (LG Intellowave, Model 1911HE) with a fixed rotary plate, maximum power output of 700 W and input voltage 230 V-50 HZ was used. A glass beaker containing 100 ml of distilled water was preheated for 5 s to warm up the magnetron. This was replaced by100 ml fresh distilled water and irradiated to maintain the temperature at around 41-43°C. This took 14 s. The glass beaker was placed at different points in the oven while irradiating it to determine the best position of the specimen during microwave decalcification, since the microwave oven used had a constant timing but not a constant temperature [Figure 1a and b].

Bottom Line: The results also showed that the overall histological picture was good with EDTA and formic acid irrespective of the methods used.In the routine method, nitric acid gave poor cellular detail when compared with microwave method.Both formic acid and EDTA show good tissue preservation and staining efficacy irrespective of the method used.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Karnatak Lingayat Education Society's Institute of Dental Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The microwave oven has been used quite often for tissue processing, but there are very few studies describing its use in decalcification of bone or teeth. In this study we have attempted to decalcify bone and teeth using a microwave oven and compare the process and results with conventional decalcification methods.

Aims and objectives: The objectives of the study were to determine and compare routine decalcification with microwave decalcification of bone and teeth using 5% nitric acid, 5% formic acid, and 14% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) with respect to speed of decalcification, preservation of tissue structure and staining efficacy.

Materials and methods: In our study the total sample size used for both routine and microwave decalcification was 30 premolar teeth and 30 pieces of condyles. The three solutions were dilute nitric acid (5%), formic acid (5%), and EDTA (14%). Each set consisting of the same type of premolars and condyles in each of the three decalcifying solutions were used in both manual method and microwave method.

Results: The results in the present study confirmed the fact that the microwave method using nitric acid was indeed the fastest decalcifying method needing just about 2 days for condyle and 4 days for premolars, compared with routine decalcification. The results also showed that the overall histological picture was good with EDTA and formic acid irrespective of the methods used. In the routine method, nitric acid gave poor cellular detail when compared with microwave method.

Conclusion: With our study we conclude that microwave oven decalcification is faster than routine decalcification irrespective of the decalcifying agents used. The tissue preservation and staining efficacy was good in microwave nitric acid decalcification compared to routine nitric acid decalcification. Both formic acid and EDTA show good tissue preservation and staining efficacy irrespective of the method used.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus