Premixed Bioceramics - A Novel Pulp Capping Agent

21/06/2022, 21:56 Premixed bioceramics: A novel pulp capping agent Motwani N, Ikhar A, Nikhade P, Chandak M, Rathi S, Dugar M, Rajnekar …
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login Users Online: 118882
Click here to view optimized w

Search

Similar in PUBMED
REVIEW ARTICLE Search Pubmed for
Year : 2021 | Volume : 24
| Issue : 2 | Page : 124-129
Motwani N
Premixed bioceramics: A novel pulp capping agent Ikhar A
Nikhade P
Chandak M
Nidhi Motwani, Anuja Ikhar, Pradnya Nikhade, Manoj Chandak, Saurabh Rathi, Meghna Dugar, Rutuja Rajnekar Rathi S
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Datta Meghe Dugar M
Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed to be University), Wardha, Maharashtra, India Rajnekar R
Click here for correspondence address and email Search in Google Scholar
for
Date of Submission 08-May-2020
Motwani N
Date of Decision 28-Jun-2020 Ikhar A
Date of Acceptance 22-Feb-2021 Nikhade P
Date of Web Publication 09-Oct-2021 Chandak M
Rathi S
Dugar M
Rajnekar R
Related articles

Bioceramic;
Abstract EndoSequence;
premixed bioceramic;
pulp capping
The main aim of restorative dentistry is to protect the vitality of the Pulp tissue. The pin point carious expoure and
iatrogenic errors warrant the need for various pulp capping procedures like Indirect Pulp Capping and Direct Pulp Email Alert *
Capping. Pulp Capping is dressing of the dental pulp exposed due to mechanical procedure, carious lesion or traumatic
injury to preserve its vitality and function. There has been constant evolution and research on materials used to cap the Add
to My List *
Pulp tissue. The different kind of chemical and biological materials has been used with varying degree of success. The * Registration required (free)
prognosis based on the pulp capping material has dramatically improved with the introduction of bioactive cement.
Though MTA and biodentine have shown a high success rate, their properties can be adversely affected with error in
powder/liquid ratio and may present with difficulty in the handling characteristic. Premixed bioceramics have been
introduced in the market and present with desirable properties as a pulp capping agent. Owing to good handling
characteristics, biocompatibility, odontogenic property, and antibacterial action it is a potent pulp capping agent for Abstract
clinical application. This review is aimed to discuss the introduction of premixed bioceramics, forms of premixed Introduction
bioceramics available, and its physical, chemical, and biocompatible properties. Premixed Bioceramics
Advantages of Pr...
Keywords: Bioceramic; EndoSequence; premixed bioceramic; pulp capping
Premixed Biocera...
How to cite this article: Conclusion
Motwani N, Ikhar A, Nikhade P, Chandak M, Rathi S, Dugar M, Rajnekar R. Premixed bioceramics: A novel pulp References
capping agent. J Conserv Dent 2021;24:124-9 Article Tables
How to cite this URL: Article Access Statistics

Motwani N, Ikhar A, Nikhade P, Chandak M, Rathi S, Dugar M, Rajnekar R. Premixed bioceramics: A novel pulp Viewed 2152
capping agent. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Jun 21];24:124-9. Available Printed 74
from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2021/24/2/124/327847 Emailed 0
PDF Downloaded 132
Comments [Add]
Introduction Cited by others 1
Miguel de Cervavntes, one of the greatest Spanish writers, in 1605 quoted “Every tooth in a man's head is more
valuable than a diamond.”[1] This highlights the importance of preservation of tooth and its constituents including pulp.
Pulp capping is defined as “treatment of an exposed vital pulp in which the pulpal wound is sealed with a dental
material, such as calcium hydroxide or mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), to facilitate the formation of reparative
dentin and maintenance of a vital pulp.”[2]
Healthy pulp has a key role throughout the living of a tooth due to the innate capacity to repair and return back from
https://www.jcd.org.in/article.asp?issn=0972-0707;year=2021;volume=24;issue=2;spage=124;epage=129;aulast=Motwani 1/8
diseased state. With the advent of standardized standard operating procedure in conjugation of newer cement and
adhering to strict protocols of disinfection, emphasis has shifted from “doomed organ” concept to that of “predictable
repair and recover.”[3],[4]
The ideal pulp capping agent should preserve the pulpal vitality and encourage reparative dentin formation. For 100
years thereafter, various different kinds of chemical and biological materials such as gold, lead, zinc oxide sulfate
cement, zinc oxide chloride cement, phosphate cement, gutta-percha, carbolic acid, cork, celluloid, asbestos, and zinc
oxide eugenol cement have been used to cap the pulp with varying degree of success.[5]
In 1920, Hermann introduced calcium hydroxide to dentistry. Although calcium hydroxide was not developed as a pulp
capping agent, Hermann used it as a pulpotomy material to prove its biocompatibility. He reported that calcium
hydroxide is biocompatible to keep tissues of the pulp vital without compromising its functions and also promote the
formation of hard tissues. However, calcium hydroxide had its disadvantages. Calcium hydroxide does not seal the
exposed pulp completely from the outside environment.[6] The quality of tertiary dentin formed is poor with calcium
hydroxide. The osteodentin produced after application is incomplete and thus results in voids and so-called tunnel
defects. It provides a chance for bacterial contamination compromising the result of the intended treatment.[7] Some
more to add to drawbacks were high solubility in the oral fluid which leads to the dissolution of the cement over an
extended period and degradation after acid etching.[8] The calcium hydroxide cement was thus not easily accepted as a
pulp capping material initially.
Clinical retrospective investigation found a variable success rate over 2–10-year period for direct calcium hydroxide
pulp capping. Dammaschke et al. reported an overall survival rate of 76.3% at a mean 6.1-year follow-up.[9] Auschill
et al. reported a success rate of 61%.[10] Willershausen et al. evaluated 1075 teeth capped with calcium hydroxide and
reported success of 80.1% at 1 year, 68% for 5 years, and 58.7% after a 9-year period.[11] Although there were
compromised properties, the lack of other new materials and promising clinical results led to continued use of this
material as a gold standard in pulp capping for more than 50 years and of the preferred universal material till date.
The compromised results of pulp capping in the past can be attributed to improper case selection, incorrect diagnosis,
incomplete caries removal, and lack of newer materials to promote reparative dentin formation and regenerative
potential. Consequently, the search of an ideal material to cap the pulp leads to other biomaterials suggested in the
literature most commonly being the calcium silicate based such as MTA and Biodentine.[12] Other materials reported
are tricalcium phosphate ceramic, collagen, bonding agents, hydroxyapatite, growth factors, various enzymes, propolis,
novel endodontic cement, Emdogain, TheraCal, and EndoSequence.[8],[13] Among all the materials tried and tested,
MTA showed a promising and exceptionally high success rate as a pulp capping material. In an observational study by
Bogen G et al., 97.66% of teeth exhibited a favorable outcome.[14] Suhag et al. in 2019 reported a success rate of 93%
with ProRoot MTA pulp capping in carious pulpal exposure.[15] Linu et al. in 2017 reported an overall success rate of
88.5% with MTA and Biodentine.[16] The enhanced survival outcomes seen with MTA or Biodentine can be attributed
to the changes in established treatment protocols and favorable composition of improved pulp capping materials.
Capping material is one of the factors to determine the success of the treatment, however, it should not be considered as
a sole criterion. According to cohen and combe, the ideal pulp capping material should - maintain pulp vitality,
stimulate reparative dentin formation, bactericidal or bacteriostatic, adhere well, provide Bacteria tight seal, sterile,
able to resist forces under restoration and preferably be radiopaque.”[17] Till today, no material has been developed
which possesses all these properties, though calcium silicate cement like MTA have maximum properties among those
mentioned above. MTA having a predictable success rate, it is not immune to drawbacks and disadvantages. MTA is
supplied in powder and liquid formulation which require mixing before use. Mixing was variable depending on
operator use and not uniform if handled incorrectly. Thus, drawbacks with MTA cement were difficult manipulation,
difficult handling characteristics, technique sensitive, discoloration, and longer setting time. To overcome these
shortlisted drawbacks of MTA, the search for newer material with uniform and easy handling characteristic lead to the
development of the most recent premixed bioceramic or premixed calcium silicate cement.[18],[19],[20],[21]
To date, most of the data have been published regarding the use of these premixed bioceramic materials used as root
canal sealers and in conjugation with obturation. There was a scarcity of review literature with respect to these
materials been used as a direct pulp capping agent, though recommended by the manufacturer. This review is aimed to
describe the role of premixed bioceramics as a pulp capping agent.
Premixed Bioceramics
In the past 50 years, bioceramics have been extensively used in medical sciences for the replacement of joints, bone
tissues, heart valves, and cochlear replacement. In dentistry, these materials were introduced for their
odontogenic/osteogenic properties.[22] Bioceramics are chemically stable, inorganic, biocompatible materials.[23]
Bioceramics can be divided into:
1. Bioinert – Which are not interactive with biologic systems, for example, alumina and zirconia
2. Bioactive – Which shows interfacial interactions with adjacent tissue; for example, Bioactive glass and glass
ceramics
3. Biodegradable – Which ultimately replace or are incorporated into tissues. for example, calcium silicates.[24]
Calcium silicate-based materials mainly consist of dicalcium or tricalcium or tetracalcium silicate with hydration
process as a basic setting mechanism. The novel premixed bioceramics consist of “calcium silicates, zirconium oxide,
tantalum oxide, calcium phosphate monobasic, and fillers.” They have superior mechanical and biological properties.
They are ready to use materials, with superior handling properties. Premixed bioceramics are hydrophilic in nature and
necessitate moisture from the adjacent tissues to set. These are classified based on their consistency with all having
similar composition.[25]
1. Syringe form
2. Putty form
3. Fast-set putty form.
Advantages of Premixed Bioceramics
1. Premixed, thus ready to use product without prerequisite to mix and manipulate avoiding operator error
2. Premixed materials have the benefit of homogenous consistency
3. Only required quantity of material can be dispensed and thus avoids waste of material
4. No cross-contamination
5. Easy delivery to nonaccessible areas
6. Superior handling characteristic
7. Easily condensable
8. They are insensitive to moisture and blood contamination and consequently are less technique sensitive
9. Upon setting, they become hard and expand slightly providing with superior long-term seal.[26]
Due to these advantages, premixed bioceramic materials are recommended for procedures such as pulp capping,
pulpotomy, perforation repair, root-end filling, and obturation.[27]
There are three premixed bioceramics currently available till date, with chemical similarity but dissimilar trade names
as per the countries they are manufactured in:
1. iRoot BP (Innovative Bioceramics, Vancouver, Canada) [Table 1]

2. EndoSequence root repair (Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA) [Table 2]
3. TotalFill (FKG Dentaire SA, Switzerland) [Table 3].
Table 1: Availability of iRoot BP (Innovative Bioceramics, Vancouver, Canada)
Click here to view

Table 2: Availability of TotalFill (FKG Dentaire SA)
Click here to view

Table 3: Availability of EndoSequence (Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA)
Click here to view
Premixed Bioceramics as a Pulp Capping Agents
Biocompatibility
Cell apoptosis/cytotoxicity
Dou et al. using an Annexin V/propidium iodide assay evaluated apoptosis of Human Dental Pulp Cells. They
concluded that apoptotic cells were higher in the Ca(OH)2 group than in iRoot BP, MTA, and Colony Growth Factor
groups. When compared to MTA, iRoot BP exhibited a near to similar apoptotic rate.[28] Eldeniz et al. evaluated
genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of various sealers including iRoot SP with new silicate-based sealer. Using lentiviral gene
transfer of human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) concluded that iRoot SP showed lesser toxicity compared
to MTA.[29]
Antimicrobial activity
ElReash et al. using agar diffusion test reported that iRoot BP Plus exhibits antimicrobial action against Streptococcus
mutans, Staphylococcus aureus, and Enterococcus faecalis which is a requisite for being pulp capping agent. They also
found that its pH was 12.1 after 5 min and 11.9 after 60 min and therefore is alkaline in nature.[30] Elshamy et al.
compared antimicrobial activity of MTA, calcium hydroxide, and EndoSequence root repair material (ERRM) against
salivary mutans streptococci and lactobacilli. They found that ProRoot MTA and ERRM had superior antimicrobial
activity than Ca(OH)2. This can be credited to its high pH (12.5), hydrophilicity, and active calcium hydroxide
diffusion.[31]
Cell viability and proliferation
Various studies have evaluated cell viability and proliferation using flow cytometry, 3- (4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5- (3-
carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2- (4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium or fluorescent dyes, CCK-8, 3- (4,5-dimethlythiazol-2-yl)-
2,5-diphenyl tertrazolium bromide etc. Chen et al. compared the effect of ERRM and gray ProRoot MTA on hDPSCs
which were cultivated over cement. They found on MTT that after 3 and 5 days ERRM showed greater cell
proliferation than Grey MTA.[32] Machado et al. using flow cytometry showed that ERRM had similar cell viability as
compared to gMTA.[33] Oncel Torun et al. using XML Tunneling Technology (XTT) assay found that iRoot BP
showed more cellular viability than wMTA in 1:1 dilution.[34] Zhang et al. compared iRoot BP Plus, BioAggregate,
and ProRoot MTA and showed that after 1 day BioAggregate, iRoot BP Plus than ProRoot MTA had greater cell
proliferation while using hDPCs derived from extracted permanent molars.[35]
Odontogenic properties
Several in vitro and in vivo studies had been conducted in both animals and humans to evaluate the odontogenic
properties of these cement. Assessments in laboratory studies can be done by detecting odontogenic markers using
fluorescence microscopy, detecting calcium by Alizarin test, determining odontogenic genes by Enzyme Linked
Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or Western blot. In vivo evaluation can be done by
evaluating the density, volume, and thickness of dentinal bridge formation by various tests.
In vitro studies
Machado et al. using Alkaline Phosphtase (ALP) assay found that after 10 days ERRM and gray ProRoot MTA showed
comparable odontogenic activities.[33] Oncel Torun et al. using real-time quantitative-PCR measured the expression of
mineralization-related genes, i.e., Bone Morphogenic Protein (BMP), bone sialoprotein, dentin sialophosphoprotein,
osteonectin, osteopontin, and collagen type I and found that mineralization potential of iRoot BP was comparable to
white MTA.[34]
Animal studies
Dentinal bridge formation is a prerequisite and by far the most essential criterion for the success of pulp capping agent.
Shi et al. in an animal study found that after 4 weeks of placement of iRoot BP Plus, dentinal bridge formation was
seen at interface of exposure pulp. Histological examination showed no inflammation and no multinucleated giant cells
around the material. At 3 months, results showed that there was >75% bridge formation showing irregular tubules in
histological sections.[36] Liu et al. conducted a study in rats for assessing amount of dentin bridge formation and
showed that at 1 week, mild bridge formation was seen in greater number of samples of iRoot BP Plus than in ProRoot
MTA and thick bridge formation was seen after 4 weeks.[37] Okamoto et al. using microcomputed tomography analysis
of tertiary dentin confirmed that some ProRoot MTA samples had little defects and there was a lack of continuity
whereas iRoot BP had no defects.[38]
Human studies
More recently, Rao et al. studied the effect of iRoot BP Plus and Ca(OH)2 as pulpotomy material in cases of
complicated crown fracture in permanent incisors and reported that iRoot BP Plus produced reparative dentin bridge
within 6 weeks, and the majority of dentin bridges had no tunnel defects.[39]
Physical and chemical properties
Setting properties
Earlier premixed cement had setting time of 2 h. Later, to decrease the long setting time and complete procedure in
minimum appointment, manufacturers developed more efficient new rapid set putty which sets in approximately 20
min. Initially, tartaric acid was used as an accelerator but had been shown to be cytotoxic. Xu et al. evaluated the use of
malic acid, glycolic acid, citric acid, and malonic acid as accelerators and found that glycolic acid greatly reduced the
setting time. The accelerator used had a great effect on the strength and cytotoxicity of material.[40] According to the
manufacturer, these cement require moisture from surroundings, i.e., fluid from dentinal tubule. Loushine et al.
established that excessively wet environment may affect the setting time and unfavorably affect the microhardness of
the material after setting. Therefore, setting time may be affected in conditions such as smear plugs and/or tubular
sclerosis.[25]
Radiopacity
It is advantageous to use materials having radiopacity values similar to or higher than that of enamel for better quality
performance.[41] Firoozmand et al. found that enamel and dentin has radiopacity of 0.91 mm and 0.63 equivalent of Al,
respectively..[42] Hrab et al. compared radiopacity of TotalFill BC sealer with hydroxyapatite with zinc (5%–10%),
hydroxyapatite with silver (10%–15%), aluminosilicate glasses (45%–50%), zirconium oxide (10%–15%), and calcium
hydroxide (5%–10%) and found that TotalFill had Radiopaque of average 4 ± 0.15 (unit) which was greater radiopacity
than experimental materials.[43] Furthermore, studies are required for assessing the radiopacity of these materials.
Strength
Compressive strength is an essential requisite that may affect the clinical performance of the material. Compressive
strength is an indirect determinant of the setting mechanism of material. Walsh et al. compared the effect of fetal
bovine serum and saline over compressive strength of ERRM with MTA plus and found that compressive strength of
premixed ERRM was less influenced by contact to biological fluids. This can be attributed to fact that ERRM was
premixed by the manufacturer and provides a more uniform mixture. MTA requires chairside manual mixing that may
have inconsistency within the material.[44]
Marginal adaptability and sealing ability
The material intended to use as a capping agent should provide a tight seal against microorganisms and prevent the
entry of any fluid toward pulp tissue. Any kind of gap leading to leakage will result in secondary caries, affecting the
extended prognosis of the procedure. Lagisetti et al. using methylene blue dye test compared microleakage of
EndoSequence BC RRM-fast-set putty, ProRoot MTA, and Zirconomer and stated that EndoSequence BC RRM-fast-
set putty had less microleakage as compared to other groups. This can be attributed due to its improved putty
consistency that allows better adaptation to cavity walls. It also contains nanoparticles which permit improved
penetration into dentinal tubules.[45] Similarly, Antunes et al.[46] and Jeevani et al. found similar results in accordance
with this study.[47] However, Hirschberg et al. found a contrary result where MTA showed less microleakage than
ERRM.[48]
Adhesion
ERRM shows micromechanical adhesion to dentin. Scanning electron microscope studies have shown microtag
formation into dentinal tubules. However, no such study has been conducted about the bond strength of material.[49]
Conclusion
The premixed bioceramic materials possess favorable results and all the properties comparable to the currently
recommended material for pulp capping, MTA. Although the results are comparable or even superior, the material is
recently introduced and thus there are lesser data and very few clinical trials to ascertain it as an alternative option to
MTA. As a material to be successful for pulp capping agent, the restorative material should be evaluated on a long-term
basis of 5–10 years, which is lacking with these materials. Till date, it can be concluded that premixed bioceramics can
be used as a pulp capping material.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Das PJ, Dkhar W, Pradhan A. An evaluation of dental crowding in relation to the mesiodistal crown widths and
arch dimensions in southern Indian population. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR.
2017;11:TC10.

2. Walton RE, Torabinejad M. Principles and Practice of Endodontics. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co.; 1996. p.
201-33.

3. Sharma A, Thomas MS, Shetty N, Srikant N. Evaluation of indirect pulp capping using pozzolan-based cement
(ENDOCEM-Zr®) and mineral trioxide aggregate – A randomized controlled trial. J Conserv Dent 2020;23:152-
7.
[Full text]
4. Chandra S. Grossman's endodontic practice. Wolters Kluwer Health India Pvt Ltd; 13th ed. 2014.

5. Mahmoud SH, El-Negoly SA, El-Din AM, El-Zekrid MH, Grawish LM, Grawish HM, et al. Biodentine versus
mineral trioxide aggregate as a direct pulp capping material for human mature permanent teeth – A systematic
review. J Conserv Dent 2018;21:466.
[PUBMED] [Full text]
6. Jalan AL, Warhadpande MM, Dakshindas DM. A comparison of human dental pulp response to calcium
hydroxide and Biodentine as direct pulp-capping agents. J Conserv Dent 2017;20:129-33.
7. Cox C, Subay R, Ostro E, Suzuki S, Suzuki SH. Tunnel defects in dental bridges: Their formation following
direct pulp capping. Oper Dent 1996;21:4-11.

8. Qureshi A, Soujanya E, Nandakumar P. Recent advances in pulp capping materials: An overview. J Clin Diagn
Res 2014;8:316.

9. Dammaschke T, Leidinger J, Schäfer E. Long-term evaluation of direct pulp capping–treatment outcomes over an
average period of 6.1 years. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:559-67.

10. Auschill TM, Arweiler NB, Hellwig E, Zamani-Alaei A, Sculean A. Success rate of direct pulp capping with
calcium hydroxide. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2003;113:946-52.

11. Willershausen B, Willershausen I, Ross A, Velikonja S, Kasaj A, Blettner M. Retrospective study on direct pulp
capping with calcium hydroxide. Quintessence Int 2011;42:165-71.

12. Piva E, Da Rosa WL, Coco AR, Da Silva TM, Mesquita LC, Galharça AD, et al. Systematic review of dental
pulp capping materials. Dent Mater 2016;1:e89.

13. Pathak SD, Bansode PV, Wavdhane MB, Khedgikar S, Birage PP. Advances in pulp capping materials: A review.
IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2017;16:31-7.

14. Bogen G, Kim JS, Bakland LK. Direct pulp capping with mineral trioxide aggregate: An observational study. J
Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:305-15.

15. Suhag K, Duhan J, Tewari S, Sangwan P. Success of direct pulp capping using mineral trioxide aggregate and
calcium hydroxide in mature permanent molars with pulps exposed during carious tissue removal: 1-year follow-
up. J Endod 2019;45:840-7.

16. Linu S, Lekshmi MS, Varunkumar VS, Joseph VS. Treatment outcome following direct pulp capping using
bioceramic materials in mature permanent teeth with carious exposure: A pilot retrospective study. J Endod
2017;43:1635-9.

17. Cohen BD, Combe EC. Development of new adhesive pulp capping materials. Dent Update 1994;21:57-62.

18. Mahgoub N, Alqadasi B, Aldhorae K, Assiry A, Altawili ZM, Hong T. Comparison between iRoot BP Plus
(EndoSequence Root Repair Material) and mineral trioxide aggregate as pulp-capping agents: A systematic
review. J Int Soc Prev Commun Dent 2019;9:542.

19. Al–Saudi KW, Nabih SM, Farghaly AM, AboHager EA. Pulpal repair after direct pulp capping with new
bioceramic materials: A comparative histological study. Saudi Dent J 2019;31:469-75.

20. Budig, CG, Eleazer PD. In vitro comparison of the setting of dry ProRoot MTA by moisture absorbed through the
root. J Endod 2008;34:712-4.

21. Souza LC, Yadlapati M, Dorn SO, Silva R, Letra A. Analysis of radiopacity, pH and cytotoxicity of a new
bioceramic material. J Appl Oral Sci 2015;23:383-9.

22. Ma J, Shen Y, Stojicic S, Haapasalo M. Biocompatibility of two novel root repair materials. J Endod
2011;37:793-8.

23. Ree M, Schwartz R. Clinical applications of bioceramics materials in endodontics. Endod Pract 2014;7:32-40.

24. Debelian G, Trope M. The use of premixed bioceramic materials in endodontics. G Ital Endod 2016;30:70-80.

25. Loushine BA, Bryan TE, Looney SW, Gillen BM, Loushine RJ, Weller RN, et al. Setting properties and
cytotoxicity evaluation of a premixed bioceramic root canal sealer. J Endod 2011;37:673-7.

26. Koch K, Brave D. The increased use of bioceramics in endodontics. Dentaltown 2009;10:39-43.

27. Nekoofar MH, Stone DF, Dummer PM. The effect of blood con-tamination on the compressive strength and
surface microstruc- ture of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2010;43:782-91.

28. Dou L, Yan Q, Yang D. Effect of five dental pulp capping agents on cell proliferation, viability, apoptosis and
mineralization of human dental pulp cells. Exp Ther Med 2020;19:2377-83.

29. Eldeniz AU, Shehata M, Högg C, Reichl FX. DNA double-strand breaks caused by new and contemporary
endodontic sealers. Int Endod J 2016;49:1141-51.

30. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research ElReash AA, Hamama H, Eldars W, Lingwei G, Zaen El-Din AM,
Xiaoli X. Antimicrobial activity and pH measurement of calcium silicate cements versus new bioactive resin
composite restorative material. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:235.

31. Elshamy FM, Singh G, Elraih H, Gupta I, Idris FA. Antibacterial effect of new bioceramic pulp capping material
on the main cariogenic bacteria. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17:349-53.

32. Chen I, Salhab I, Setzer FC, Kim S, Nah HD. A new calcium silicate-based bioceramic material promotes human
osteo-and odontogenic stem cell proliferation and survival via the extracellular signal-regulated kinase signaling
pathway. J Endod 2016;42:480-6.

33. Machado J, Johnson JD, Paranjpe A. The effects of endosequence root repair material on differentiation of dental
pulp cells. J Endod 2016;42:101-5.

34. Oncel Torun Z, Torun D, Demirkaya K, Yavuz ST, Elci MP, Sarper M, et al. Effects of iRoot BP and white
mineral trioxide aggregate on cell viability and the expression of genes associated with mineralization. Int Endod
J 2015;48:986-93.

35. Zhang S, Yang X, Fan M. BioAggregate and iRoot BP Plus optimize the proliferation and mineralization ability
of human dental pulp cells. Int Endod J 2013;46:923-9.

36. Shi S, Bao ZF, Liu Y, Zhang DD, Chen X, Jiang LM, et al. Comparison of in vivo dental pulp responses to
capping with iRoot BP Plus and mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2016;49:154-60.

37. Liu S, Wang S, Dong Y. Evaluation of a bioceramic as a pulp capping agent in vitro and in vivo. J Endod
2015;41:652-7.

38. Okamoto M, Takahashi Y, Komichi S, Ali M, Yoneda N, Ishimoto T, et al. Novel evaluation method of dentin
repair by direct pulp capping using high-resolution micro-computed tomography. Clin Oral Invest 2018;22:2879-
87.

39. Rao Q, Kuang J, Mao C, Dai J, Hu L, Lei Z, et al. Comparison of iRoot BP Plus and calcium hydroxide as
pulpotomy materials in permanent incisors with complicated crown fractures: A retrospective study. J Endod
2020;46:352-7.

40. Xu HH, Carey LE, Simon CG, Takagi S, Chow LC. Premixed calcium phosphate cements: Synthesis, physical
properties, and cell cytotoxicity. Dent Mater 2007;23:433-41.

41. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Erickson RL, Keck SC, Glasspoole EA. Radiopacity of restorations and detection of
secondary caries. Dent Mater 1991;7:114-7.

42. Firoozmand LM, Cordeiro MG, Da Silva MA, De Jesus Tavarez RR, Maia Filho M. Radiopacity of methacrylate
and silorane composite resins using a digital radiographic system. Sci World J 2016;2016.

43. Hrab D, Chisnoiu AM, Badea ME, Moldovan M, Chisnoiu RM. Comparative radiographic assessment of a new
bioceramic-based root canal sealer. Clujul Med 2017;90:226.

44. Walsh RM, Woodmansey KF, Glickman GN, He J. Evaluation of compressive strength of hydraulic silicate-based
root-end filling materials. J Endod 2014:40:969-72.

45. Lagisetti AK, Hegde P, Hegde MN. Evaluation of bioceramics and zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement in
repair of furcation perforations: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2018;21:184.
46. Antunes HS, Gominho LF, Andrade-Junior CV, Dessaune-Neto N, Alves FR, Rôças IN, et al. Sealing ability of
two root-end filling materials in a bacterial nutrient leakage model. Int Endod J 2016;49:960-5.

47. Jeevani E, Jayaprakash T, Bolla N, Vemuri S, Sunil CR, Kalluru RS. Evaluation of sealing ability of MM-MTA,
Endosequence, and biodentine as furcation repair materials: UV spectrophotometric analysis. J Conserv Dent
2014;17:340-3.
48. Hirschberg CS, Patel NS, Patel LM, Kadouri DE, Hartwell GR. Comparison of sealing ability of MTA and
EndoSequence Bioceramic Root Repair Material: A bacterial leakage study. Quintessence Int 2013;44:e157-62.

49. Wang Z. Bioceramic materials in endodontics. Endodontic topic 2015;32:3-30.

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Nidhi Motwani
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Datta Meghe
Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed to be University), Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, Maharashtra
India
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Check
DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_202_20

Tables

[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
This article has been cited by

Mechanical and physico-chemical properties of premixed-MTA in contact with three different types
1
of solutions
Tae-Yun Kang, Ji-Won Choi, Kwang-Mahn Kim, Jae-Sung Kwon
Korean Journal of Dental Materials. 2021; 48(4): 281
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
Sitemap |
Advertise | What's New
| Feedback | Disclaimer | Privacy Notice
© 2008 Journal of Conservative Dentistry | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since
10th June, 2008
Editorial and Ethics Policies

ISSN: Print -0972-0707, Online - 0974-5203


Premixed Bioceramics - A Novel Pulp Capping Agent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Premixed Bioceramics - A Novel Pulp Capping Agent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

21/06/2022, 21:56 Premixed bioceramics: A novel pulp capping agent Motwani N, Ikhar A, Nikhade P, Chandak M, Rathi S, Dugar M, Rajnekar …

Click here to view optimized w

How to cite this URL: Article Access Statistics

Advantages of Premixed Bioceramics

1. iRoot BP (Innovative Bioceramics, Vancouver, Canada) [Table 1]

Table 1: Availability of iRoot BP (Innovative Bioceramics, Vancouver, Canada)

Click here to view

Click here to view

Click here to view

Premixed Bioceramics as a Pulp Capping Agents

Cell viability and proliferation

Physical and chemical properties

Marginal adaptability and sealing ability

Financial support and sponsorship

There are no conflicts of interest.

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

This article has been cited by

You might also like