ArticleClinical oral investigations2019
Bone tissue reaction, setting time, solubility, and pH of root repair materials.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- In vitro evaluation of the effects of different bone grafts on the surface microhardness of NeoPUTTY and MTA Angelus.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Physicochemical properties and periodontal ligament stem cell response to NeoMTA 2.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Efficacy of root end cavity preparation techniques on gap formation of different mineral trioxide aggregate based root end filling materials: micro-computed tomography study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Microtomographic and histological evaluation of two bioceramics as pulp capping agents in vivo.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2024Article
- Color stability and solubility of Biodentine and NeoPutty in contact with different irrigation solutions.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Article
- Successful Healing of Periapical Pathology with Partial Pulpotomy in a Mature Permanent Molar: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, and bioactivity of calcium silicate-based cements.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Effect of pH on the solubility and volumetric change of ready-to-use Bio-C Repair bioceramic material.Brazilian oral research · 2024Article
- Remineralization ability of different root canal sealers.The Saudi dental journal · 2023Article
- Comparative biological properties of resin-free and resin-based calcium silicate-based endodontic repair materials on human periodontal ligament stem cells.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Biocompatibility and mineralization potential of new calcium silicate cements.Journal of dental sciences · 2023Article
- Investigation of the effect of hydrochloric acid with different concentrations on mineral trioxide aggregate plug and dentin.Dental research journal · 2023Article
- An in vitro evaluation of antimicrobial activity of a fast-setting endodontic material.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Present status and future directions: Hydraulic materials for endodontic use.International endodontic journal · 2022Review
- An Updated Review on Properties and Indications of Calcium Silicate-Based Cements in Endodontic Therapy.International journal of dentistry · 2022Review
- PLGA/β-TCP composite scaffold incorporating cucurbitacin B promotes bone regeneration by inducing angiogenesis.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2021Article
- BiodentineHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Biocompatibility of NeoMTA Plus® versus MTA Angelus as delayed furcation perforation repair materials in a dog model.BMC oral health · 2021Article
- Biocompatibility and bioactive potential of the NeoMTA Plus endodontic bioceramic-based sealer.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2021Article
- Preparation and Characterization of Iron-Doped Tricalcium Silicate-Based Bone Cement as a Bone Repair Material.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis 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
methodsInitial 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.
resultsNeoMTA 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).
conclusionsNeoMTA 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30022271What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.