ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Magnesium-organophosphate bone adhesives repurposed as endodontic cements for dental applications.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study investigated novel mineral-organic cements based on magnesium and organophosphates, originally developed as resorbable bone adhesives. The aim was to evaluate this new class of materials in a dental context, focusing on their suitability as temporary restorative materials in endodontic treatments. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo thermally treated trimagnesium phosphate hydrates (Mg₃(PO₄)₂ ∙ xH₂O and Mg₃(PO₄)₂ ∙ 22H₂O (cattiite)) were each combined with two organophosphates (phosphoserine (OPLS) and sodium phytate (Na-IP6)), resulting in four adhesive formulations. These were compared with a commonly used material for temporary restorations (Cavit™) and a reference adhesive (TTCP + OPLS) regarding mechanical strength, sealing ability (methylene blue penetration) on bovine teeth, and structural integrity.
resultsShear bond strength to dental hard tissues was significantly higher for the new cements compared to Cavit™, particularly for the OPLS + TMP ∙ xH₂O formulation (4.35 ± 0.71 MPa vs. 0.29 ± 0.16 MPa; initially on dentin). pH and temperature during setting remained within clinical limits. TMP ∙ xH₂O + OPLS also showed the favorable sealing behavior, while Cavit™ performed similarly. Porosimetry, SEM and micro-CT supported the favorable profile of this formulation.
conclusionThe combination of 400 °C sintered TMP ∙ xH₂O and OPLS proved most suitable in terms of handling, stability, and sealing. This system are promising candidates for temporary restorations, particularly in non-retentive cavities. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The tested cements may serve as novel resorbable, adhesive alternatives for temporary restorations. Future applications could include pulp capping or perforation repair.
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.