| Literature DB >> 32726858 |
Gabriele Cervino1, Luigi Laino2,1, Cesare D'Amico1, Diana Russo2, Ludovica Nucci2, Giulia Amoroso1, Francesca Gorassini1, Michele Tepedino3, Antonella Terranova1, Dario Gambino1, Roberta Mastroieni1, Melek Didem Tözüm4, Luca Fiorillo1.
Abstract
A current topic in dentistry concerns the biocompatibility of the materials, and in particular, conservative dentistry and endodontics ones. The mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a dental material with biocompatibility properties to oral and dental tissues. MTA was developed for dental root repair in endodontic treatment and it is formulated from commercial Portland cement, combined with bismuth oxide powder for radiopacity. MTA is used for creating apical plugs during apexification, repairing root perforations during root canal therapy, treating internal root resorption, and pulp capping. The objective of this article is to investigate MTA features from a clinical point of view, even compared with other biomaterials. All the clinical data regarding this dental material will be evaluated in this review article. Data obtained from the analysis of the past 10 years' literature highlighted 19 articles in which the MTA clinical aspects could be recorded. The results obtained in this article are an important step to demonstrate the safety and predictability of oral rehabilitations with these biomaterials and to promote a line to improve their properties in the future.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32726858 PMCID: PMC7536098 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713073
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Dent
Fig. 1Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flow chart.
All mineral trioxide aggregate use
| Conservative dentistry | Indirect pulp capping |
| Direct pulp capping | |
| Endodontic dentistry | Root filling |
| Root filling with postcore indication |
Main results and item investigated on reviews
| Authors (y) | Sample | Items | Outcomes | Type of study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abbreviations: MTA, mineral trioxide aggregate; RCT, randomized controlled trial; ZOE, zinc oxide eugenol. | ||||
|
Çelik et al (2019)
| 24 + 20 | MTA vs. Biodentine |
Differences on success,
| RCT |
|
Erfanparast et al (2018)
| 46 × 2 (split mouth) | Resin modified Portland cement vs. MTA |
Differences are not significant,
| RCT |
|
Koc Vural et al (2017)
| 49 + 51 | MTA vs. calcium hydroxide |
There are no differences between used materials,
| RCT |
|
Kang et al (2017)
| 33 + 36 + 35 | ProRoot MTA vs. Ortho MTA vs. RetroMTA | No significant differences between groups | RCT |
|
Bakhtiar et al (2017)
| 9 + 9 + 9 | TheraCal vs. Biodentine vs. ProRoot MTA |
Normal pulp organization (
| RCT |
|
Asl Aminabadi et al (2016)
| 40 + 40 + 40 + 40 | Simvastatin vs. 3Mix vs. 3Mixtatin vs. MTA |
No differences between MTA and 3Mixtatin (
| RCT |
|
Aminabadi et al (2016)
| 40 + 40 | 3Mixtatin vs. MTA | Clinical differences between groups | RCT |
|
Nowicka et al (2015)
| 11 + 11 + 11 + 11 | Calcium hydroxide, MTA, Biodentine, Single Bond Universal | Reparative formed dentin was less in Single Bond Universal group; the mean density of dentin bridges was the highest in the MTA group and the lowest in the Single Bond Universal group | RCT |
|
Kang et al (2015)
| 49 + 47 + 47 | RetroMTA vs. Ortho MTA vs. PRoRoot MTA | Clinical success rate is similar and not statistically significant | RCT |
|
Bonte et al (2015)
| 15 + 15 | MTA vs. calcium hydroxide |
Success rate demonstrated a difference between groups,
| RCT |
|
Petrou et al (2014)
| 31 + 26 + 29 | Calcium hydroxide vs. medical Portland cement vs. white MTA |
Difference between groups are not significant (
| RCT |
|
Hilton et al (2013)
| 181 + 195 | Calcium hydroxide vs. MTA | Failure rate at 24 mo was 31.5% for calcium hydroxide and 19.7% for MTA | RCT |
|
Gandolfi et al (2013)
| 8 + 8 | AH Plus vs. MTA Flow | MTA flow sealer created a dense apatite layer after 7 d | RCT |
|
Bernabé et al (2013)
| 34 | ProRoot MTA | Sonic vibration could be considered an efficient aid to improve MTA sealing ability | RCT |
|
Sönmez et al (2012)
| 15 + 15 + 15 + 6 | AH Plus vs. MTA Fillapex vs. ProRoot MTA vs. control |
MTA Fillapex had higher microleakage values,
| RCT |
|
Leye Benoist et al (2012)
| 60 | MTA vs. calcium hydroxide |
Success rates are different between groups at 3 mo,
| RCT |
|
Ghoddusi et al (2012)
| MTA vs. ZOE) | MTA and ZOE showed both clinical success | RCT | |
|
Hansen et al (2011)
| 12 + 12 | ProRoot MTA vs. EndoSequence Root Repair Material |
pH level was higher for MTA and EndoSequence
| RCT |
|
Yildirim et al (2009)
| 15 + 15 + 15 + 6 | Gutta-percha vs. Gutta-percha prepared with gates vs. MTA vs. control |
MTA showed less microleakage,
| RCT |
Fig. 2Success rate frequency polygon chart of MTA (blue) versus other biomaterials. MTA, mineral trioxide aggregate.
Fig. 3SEM microleakage between MTA and bonding agents. The MTA use could, in some cases, make the definitive reconstruction complex due to the physical–chemical properties of itself and difficulty of use with hydrophobic substances. MTA, mineral trioxide aggregate; SEM, scanning electron microscope.