Literature DB >> 30022271

Bone tissue reaction, setting time, solubility, and pH of root repair materials.

Ramiro Martins Quintana1, Alexander Pompermayer Jardine1, Tuane Regina Grechi1, Renata Grazziotin-Soares2, Diego Machado Ardenghi2, Roberta Kochenborger Scarparo1, Fabiana Soares Grecca1, Patrícia Maria Poli Kopper3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the bone tissue reaction, setting time, solubility, and pH of NeoMTA Plus, Biodentine (BD), and MTA Angelus (MTA-A).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Initial and final setting times (n = 7) and solubility up to 7 days (n = 11) were evaluated in accordance with ASTM C266-15 and ANSI/ADA Specification No. 57, respectively. pH (n = 10) was measured up to 28 days. Bone tissue reactions in 48 rats' femur were histologically analyzed after 7, 30, and 90 days. ANOVA and Tukey's tests compared setting time, solubility, and pH data; bone reactions data were compared by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests.
RESULTS: NeoMTA Plus had longer initial and final setting times than MTA-A and BD (P < 0.05). At 7 days, BD showed the highest solubility, similar to NeoMTA Plus (P > 0.05) and different from MTA-A (P < 0.05). NeoMTA Plus had a progressive mass loss over time; at 7 days, it was significantly different from the initial mass (P < 0.05). BD showed higher pH in the periods assessed when compared to the other materials (P < 0.05). Bone tissue repair had no differences between groups in each experimental period (P > 0.05). All groups presented no difference from 30 to 90 days (P > 0.05) and had better bone repair at 90 days than at 7 days (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: NeoMTA Plus, BD, and MTA-A showed satisfactory setting time, high mass loss, alkaline pH, and allowed bone repair. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Calcium silicate-based cements are indicated for multiple clinical situations. NeoMTA Plus and BD showed satisfactory physical-chemical and biological properties, being considered as alternatives to MTA-A, as root repair materials for clinical use.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biocompatibility; Endodontic repair materials; Setting time; Solubility; pH

Year:  2018        PMID: 30022271     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2564-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  5 in total

Review 1.  Present status and future directions: Hydraulic materials for endodontic use.

Authors:  Josette Camilleri; Amre Atmeh; Xin Li; Nastaran Meschi
Journal:  Int Endod J       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 5.165

2.  Micro-computed tomography high resolution evaluation of dimensional and morphological changes of 3 root-end filling materials in simulated physiological conditions.

Authors:  Fernanda Ferrrari Esteves Torres; Reinhilde Jacobs; Mostafa EzEldeen; Juliane Maria Guerreiro-Tanomaru; Bernardo Camargo Dos Santos; Éverton Lucas-Oliveira; Tito José Bonagamba; Mario Tanomaru-Filho
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 3.896

3.  Biocompatibility and bioactive potential of the NeoMTA Plus endodontic bioceramic-based sealer.

Authors:  Roberto Alameda Hoshino; Mateus Machado Delfino; Guilherme Ferreira da Silva; Juliane Maria Guerreiro-Tanomaru; Mário Tanomaru-Filho; Estela Sasso-Cerri; Paulo Sérgio Cerri
Journal:  Restor Dent Endod       Date:  2020-12-17

4.  PLGA/β-TCP composite scaffold incorporating cucurbitacin B promotes bone regeneration by inducing angiogenesis.

Authors:  Wen-Xiang Cheng; Yan-Zhi Liu; Xiang-Bo Meng; Zheng-Tan Zheng; Ling-Li Li; Li-Qing Ke; Ling Li; Cui-Shan Huang; Guo-Yuan Zhu; Hu-Dan Pan; Ling Qin; Xin-Luan Wang; Peng Zhang
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  An in vitro evaluation of antimicrobial activity of a fast-setting endodontic material.

Authors:  Mengzhen Ji; Yaqi Chi; Ye Wang; Kaixin Xiong; Xuan Chen; Ling Zou
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-26       Impact factor: 4.996

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.