ArticleBMC oral health2021
Biocompatibility of NeoMTA Plus® versus MTA Angelus as delayed furcation perforation repair materials in a dog model.
Article in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term dentin-pulp complex repair with four pulp capping materials: a double-blind randomized crossover histological study.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Histologic evaluation of furcation perforation treated using bioceramic putty with and without platelet rich fibrin or chitosan hydrogel as an internal matrix.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The effect of osseodensification versus conventional drilling technique on bone osteotomy with and without implant placement in dog's maxilla.European oral research · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of the physicochemical and biological properties of calcium silicate-based pulp capping materials.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Article
- Endodontic bioceramics: current and futurity aspects.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Review
- Sealing efficacy of titanium-doped versus conventional MTA in access perforation repair: AnBioinformation · 2025Article
- Biocompatibility of mineral trioxide aggregate and biodentine as root-end filling materials: an in vivo study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The osteoinductive potential of different root-end filling materials in a rat femur modelScientific reports · 2024Article
- Root-filling materials for endodontic surgery: biological and clinical aspects.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2024Review
- Bioceramics in Endodontics: Updates and Future Perspectives.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Inflammatory response and immunohistochemical characterization of experimental calcium silicate-based perforation repair material.International journal of experimental pathology · 2022Article
- Present status and future directions: Hydraulic materials for endodontic use.International endodontic journal · 2022Review
- Outcomes of furcal perforation management using Mineral Trioxide Aggregate and Biodentine: a systematic review.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2022Article
- An Updated Review on Properties and Indications of Calcium Silicate-Based Cements in Endodontic Therapy.International journal of dentistry · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe biocompatibility of NeoMTA Plus® (Avlon BioMed Inc., Bradenton, Fl) as a furcal perforation repair material is not fully understood. This study compares the biocompatibility of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA Angelus) and NeoMTA Plus® as delayed furcation perforation repair materials.
methodsPulpotomy and root canal obturation were performed in 72 premolars in six mongrel dogs and then a standardized furcal perforation was performed. The coronal access was left open for three weeks. After curetting, cleaning and drying of the perforations, these teeth were divided into three equal groups (N = 24 teeth/ 2 dogs each) according to the material used for perforation repair; group I: NeoMTA Plus®, group II: MTA Angelus and group III: no material (positive control). The coronal access cavities were sealed with a filling material. The inflammatory cell count and qualitative pathology (presence of calcific bridge, configuration of fibrous tissue formed, examination of tissue surrounding the furcation area, histology of intraradicular bone and the inflammatory nature of tissues) were carried out after one week (subgroup A, N = 8 teeth), one month (subgroup B, N = 8 teeth) and three months (subgroup C, N = 8 teeth). The inflammatory cell count was expressed as mean ± SD and statistically analyzed. P-value < 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsIn all subgroups, the control group exhibited the highest number of inflammatory cell count, followed by MTA Angelus group and the least inflammatory cell count was shown by NeoMTA Plus® group. There was a significant difference in the inflammatory cell count between the NeoMTA Plus® and MTA Angelus after one week (P < 0.05) while no significant differences were recorded between them after one month and three months (P > 0.05). In contrast to group II, there was no significant differences in inflammatory cell count between the subgroups in groups I and III (P > 0.05). NeoMTA Plus® exhibited better qualitative pathological features than MTA Angelus after one week and nearly similar features after one month and three months of repair.
conclusionNeoMTA Plus® has a better early biocompatibility than MTA Angelus after one week of delayed furcation perforation repair and a similar late biocompatibility after one month and three months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.