Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 1359–1366 | Cite as

Bone tissue reaction, setting time, solubility, and pH of root repair materials

  • Ramiro Martins Quintana
  • Alexander Pompermayer Jardine
  • Tuane Regina Grechi
  • Renata Grazziotin-Soares
  • Diego Machado Ardenghi
  • Roberta Kochenborger Scarparo
  • Fabiana Soares Grecca
  • Patrícia Maria Poli KopperEmail author
Original Article



This 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 methods

Initial 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.


NeoMTA 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).


NeoMTA 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.


Biocompatibility Endodontic repair materials pH Setting time Solubility 



This study was conducted at the School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (Oral Pathology laboratory and Oral Biochemistry and Microbiology laboratory). The authors (Ramiro Martins Quintana and Alexander Pompermayer Jardine) received funding from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Ensino Superior (CAPES) Agency, Brazil.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the study did not involve human participants.


  1. 1.
    Parirokh M, Torabinejad M (2010b) Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review—part I: chemical, physical, and antibacterial properties. J Endod 36:16–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torabinejad M, Hong CU, McDonald F, Pitt Ford TR (1995a) Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material. J Endod 21:349–353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parirokh M, Torabinejad M (2010a) Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review—part III: clinical applications, drawbacks, and mechanism of action. J Endod 36:400–413. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuadros-Fernández C, Lorente Rodríguez AI, Sáez-Martínez S, García-Binimelis J, About I, Mercadé M (2016) Short-term treatment outcome of pulpotomies in primary molars using mineral trioxide aggregate and biodentine: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 20:1639–1645. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kundzina R, Stangvaltaite L, Eriksen HM, Kerosuo E (2017) Capping carious exposures in adults: a randomized controlled trial investigating mineral trioxide aggregate versus calcium hydroxide. Int Endod J 50:924–932. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Güzeler I, Uysal S, Cehreli ZC (2010) Management of trauma-induced inflammatory root resorption using mineral trioxide aggregate obturation: two-year follow up: management of trauma-induced inflammatory root resorption. Dent Traumatol 26(6):501–504. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Torabinejad M, Smith PW, Kettering JD, Pitt Ford TR (1995b) Comparative investigation of marginal adaptation of mineral trioxide aggregate and other commonly used root-end filling materials. J Endod 21:295–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malkondu Ö, Karapinar Kazandağ M, Kazazoğlu E (2014) A review on biodentine, a contemporary dentine replacement and repair material. Biomed Res Int 2014:160951. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rajasekharan S, Martens LC, Cauwels RGEC, Anthonappa RP (2018) Biodentine™ material characteristics and clinical applications: a 3 year literature review and update. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 19:1–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grech L, Mallia B, Camilleri J (2013) Investigation of the physical properties of tricalcium silicate cement-based root-end filling materials. Dent Mater 29:e20–e28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gomes-Cornélio AL, Rodrigues EM, Salles LP, Mestieri LB, Faria G, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Tanomaru-Filho M (2017) Bioactivity of MTA plus, biodentine and an experimental calcium silicate-based cement on human osteoblast-like cells. Int Endod J 50:39–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Costa F, Sousa Gomes P, Fernandes MH (2016) Osteogenic and Angiogenic response to calcium silicate–based endodontic sealers. J Endod 42:113–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tomás-Catalá CJ, Collado-González M, García-Bernal D, Onate-Sanchez RE, Forner L, Llena C, Lozano A, Moraleda JM, Rodriguez-Lozano FJ (2018) Biocompatibility of new pulp-capping materials NeoMTA plus, MTA repair HP, and biodentine on human dental pulp stem cells. J Endod 44:126–132. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Camilleri J (2015) Staining potential of neo MTA plus, MTA plus, and biodentine used for pulpotomy procedures. J Endod 41:1139–1145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tran D, He J, Glickman GN, Woodmansey KF (2016) Comparative analysis of calcium silicate–based root filling materials using an open apex model. J Endod 42:654–658. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siboni F, Taddei P, Prati C, Gandolfi MG (2017) Properties of NeoMTA plus and MTA plus cements for endodontics. Int Endod J 50:e83–e94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prati C, Gandolfi MG (2015) Calcium silicate bioactive cements: biological perspectives and clinical applications. Dent Mater 31:351–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Silva LAB, Pieroni KAMG, Nelson-Filho P, Silva RAB, Hernandez-Gaton P, Lucisano MP, Paula-Silva FWG, de Queiroz AM (2017) Furcation perforation: Periradicular tissue response to biodentine as a repair material by histopathologic and indirect immunofluorescence analyses. J Endod 43:1137–1142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tanomaru-Filho M, Andrade AS, Rodrigues EM, Viola KS, Faria G, Camilleri J, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM (2017) Biocompatibility and mineralized nodule formation of neo MTA plus and an experimental tricalcium silicate cement containing tantalum oxide. Int Endod J 50:e31–e39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ASTM C266–15 (2015) Standard test method for time of setting of hydraulic-cement paste by Gilmore needles. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carvalho-Junior J, Correr-Sobrinho L, Correr A, Sinhoreti M, Consani S, Sousa-Neto M (2007) Solubility and dimensional change after setting of root canal sealers: a proposal for smaller dimensions of test samples. J Endod 33:1110–1116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bosso-Martelo R, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Viapiana R, Berbert FLC, Duarte MAH, Tanomaru-Filho M (2016) Physicochemical properties of calcium silicate cements associated with microparticulate and nanoparticulate radiopacifiers. Clin Oral Investig 20:83–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Assmann E, Böttcher DE, Hoppe CB, Grecca FS, Kopper PMP (2015) Evaluation of bone tissue response to a sealer containing mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 4:62–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Avalon Biomed. Neo MTA Plus (2018) Accessed in 27 March 2018
  25. 25.
    Ber BS, Hatton JF, Stewart GP (2007) Chemical modification of ProRoot MTA to improve handling characteristics and decrease setting time. J Endod 33:1231–1234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bernardi A, Bortoluzzi EA, Felippe WT, Felippe MCS, Wan WS, Teixeira CS (2017) Effects of the addition of nanoparticulate calcium carbonate on setting time, dimensional change, compressive strength, solubility and pH of MTA. Int Endod J 50:97–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Torres FFE, Bosso-Martelo R, Espir CG, Cirelli JA, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Tanomaru-Filho M (2017) Evaluation of physicochemical properties of root-end filling materials using conventional and micro-CT tests. J Appl Oral Sci 4:374–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaup M, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T (2015) An in vitro study of different material properties of biodentine compared to ProRoot MTA. Head Face Med 11:16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gandolfi MG, Van Landuyt K, Taddei P, Modena E, Van Meerbeek B, Prati C (2010) Environmental scanning electron microscopy connected with energy dispersive x-ray analysis and Raman techniques to study ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate and calcium silicate cements in wet conditions and in real time. J Endod 36:851–857. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Camilleri J (2008) The physical properties of accelerated Portland cement for endodontic use. Int Endod J 41:151–157. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poggio C, Lombardini M, Alessandro C, Simonetta R (2007) Solubility of root-end–filling materials: a comparative study. J Endod 33:1094–1097. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gandolfi MG, Siboni F, Primus CM, Prati C (2014) Ion release, porosity, solubility, and bioactivity of MTA plus tricalcium silicate. J Endod 40:1632–1637. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Silva EJ, Perez R, Valentim RM, Belladonna FG, De-Deus GA, Lima IC, Neves AA (2017) Dissolution, dislocation and dimensional changes of endodontic sealers after a solubility challenge: a micro-CT approach. Int Endod J 50:407–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Razmi H, Aminsobhani M, Bolhari B, Shamshirgar F, Shahsavan S, Shamshiri AR (2013) Calcium enriched mixture and mineral trioxide aggregate activities against enterococcus faecalis in presence of dentin. Iran Endod J 8:191Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McNamara RP, Henry MA, Schindler WG, Hargreaves KM (2010) Biocompatibility of accelerated mineral trioxide aggregate in a rat model. J Endod 36:1851–1855. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rodrigues EM, Cornélio ALG, Mestieri LB, Fuentes ASC, Salles LP, Rossa-Junior C, Faria G, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Tanomaru-Filho M (2017) Human dental pulp cells response to mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and MTA plus: cytotoxicity and gene expression analysis. Int Endod J 50:780–789. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee HS, Jung EY, Bae SH, Kwon KH, Kim JM, Suh HJ (2011) Stimulation of osteoblastic differentiation and mineralization in MC3T3-E1 cells by yeast hydrolysate. Phytother Res 25:716–723. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mittal M, Chandra S, Chandra S (1995) Comparative tissue toxicity evaluation of four endodontic sealers. J Endod 21:622–624. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rahimi S, Mokhtari H, Shahi S, Kazemi A, Eghbal MJ, Mesgariabbasi M, Mohajeri D (2012) Osseous reaction to implantation of two endodontic cements: mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and calcium enriched mixture (CEM). Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 17:907–911. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Figueiredo JA, Pesce HF, Gioso MA, Figueiredo MA (2001) The histological effects of four endodontic sealers implanted in the oral mucosa: submucous injection versus implant in polyethylene tubes. Int Endod J 34:377–385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sinai IH (1977) Endodontic perforations: their prognosis and treatment. J Am Dent Assoc 95:90–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hashem AAR, Hassanien EE (2008) ProRoor MTA, MTA ANGELUSngelus and IRM used to repair large furcation perforations: sealability study. J Endod 34:59–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Guneser MB, Akbulut MB, Eldeniz AU (2013) Effect of various endodontic irrigants on the push-out bond strength of biodentine and conventional root perforation repair materials. J Endod 39:380–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gandolfi MG, Iezzi G, Piattelli A, Prati C, Scarano A (2017) Osteoinductive potential and bone-bonding ability of ProRoot MTA, MTA plus and biodentine in rabbit intramedullary model: microchemical characterization and histological analysis. Dent Mater 33:e221–e238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramiro Martins Quintana
    • 1
  • Alexander Pompermayer Jardine
    • 1
  • Tuane Regina Grechi
    • 1
  • Renata Grazziotin-Soares
    • 2
  • Diego Machado Ardenghi
    • 2
  • Roberta Kochenborger Scarparo
    • 1
  • Fabiana Soares Grecca
    • 1
  • Patrícia Maria Poli Kopper
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Dentistry Graduate Program, School of DentistryFederal University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.College of DentistryUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations