Comparison of biological efficacy of two mineral trioxide aggregate based materials : in vivo study

Abstract

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is considered a suitable material for vital pulp therapy, but has the limitations of causing tooth discoloration, having a long setting time, and presenting handling difficulties. Therefore, much effort has been focused on overcoming these problems by modifying the chemical composition of MTA-based materials used in pulp therapy. And newly developed products have been introduced to the market. The aim of this study was to compare the biocompatibility of Endocem Zr® and ProRoot MTA® by histopathologic analysis in a dog model of pulpotomy. This study utilized 39 teeth of two beagle dogs. The exposed pulp tissues were treated by pulpotomy using ProRoot MTA (n=19) or Endocem Zr (n=20). After 8 weeks, the teeth were extracted and processed with hematoxylin-eosin staining for histologic evaluation. Development of a calcific barrier, the inflammatory response, and formation of an odontoblast layer were evaluated and scored from 1 to 4 in order of decreasing biological efficacy. Most of the ProRoot MTA and Endocem Zr specimens developed a calcific barrier at the pulp amputation site and formed an odontoblast layer. However, some of the Endocem Zr specimens showed less calcific barrier formation with a greater inflammatory response and less odontoblast layer formation when compared with the ProRoot MTA specimens. ProRoot MTA and Endocem Zr specimens developed a calcific barrier; however, ProRoot MTA was more biocompatible than Endocem Zr.