Will Portland cement be a cheaper alternative to mineral trioxide ...

International Journal of Contemporary Dental and Medical Reviews (2015), Article ID 110215, 7 Pages

REVIEW ARTICLE

Will Portland cement be a cheaper alternative to mineral trioxide aggregate in clinical use?: A comprehensive review of literature Amitabha Chakraborty Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Al-Hassa Dental Center, Ministry of Health, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Dr. Amitabha Chakraborty, P.O. Box No. 63461, Salmaniya, Hofuf, Al-Hassa 31982, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Phone: 00966 551925231, Email: [email protected] Received 27 February 2015; Accepted 28 April 2015 doi: 10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.69 How to cite the article: Amitabha Chakraborty, “Will Portland cement be a cheaper alternative to mineral trioxide aggregate in clinical use?: A comprehensive review of literature,” Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev vol.2015, Article ID: 110215, 2015. doi: 10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.69

Abstract Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) was introduced in 1993 as root perforation repair material. Since then it is widely used as a successful dental hard tissue repair material especially in vital pulp therapy, apical plug, and perforation repair. In last 14 years, more than 100 publications have shown that Portland cement (PC) (which forms the bulk of MTA) has similar properties like MTA through different in vivo, in vitro, animal studies and recently through human trials. The experiments are still under process to see whether the PC can be used as a cheaper alternative of MTA. This article reviews the experiments done comparing the properties of these two materials and the potential of PC for clinical use in future along with the possible drawbacks. Keywords: Gray MTA, Portland cement, White MTA

Introduction

Chemical Composition and Properties

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) has been first introduced as a root perforation sealing material by Lee et al.[1] from Loma Linda university, CA in 1993. Since then hundreds of publications came in support of MTA to be used in dentine and cementum injuries and the MTA gradually become an essential material in dentistry for all kinds of dental hard tissue repair like pulp capping, pulpotomy, perforations, and apical seal in wide open apex, etc. Couple of years later an article presented by Dr. Torabinejad, the introducer of MTA; where it has been observed that MTA has similarity with Portland cement (PC) in its composition and physical and chemical properties.[2] Next in 1999 Wucherpfennig showed through X-ray diffraction analysis that both MTA and PC have “identical characteristics”[3] and in 2000 Estrela used ordinary PC as a reference material to MTA.[4] Till then both the materials has experimentally compared through several in vivo and in vitro experiments, animal studies and recently through human trials to see whether PC can be used as a cheaper alternative of MTA in clinical use. In the next part, we will review the comparative studies published involving these two materials in different parameter.

Material safety data sheet (MSDS) of Commercial MTA materials shows that all MTA’s are a mixture pure PC, bismuth oxide (BO), and in some products CaSO4 is also added. Chemical composition of MTA and PC has been analyzed through various methods like X-ray diffraction analyses, X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, etc., and found that both the material are similar in their composition.[5-8] The basic major content of MTA and PC are tri-calcium silicate, dicalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, and tri-calcium oxide. Beside this silica, alumina, ferric oxide, magnesium oxide are also present. The basic difference between these two materials is that the PC does not contain BO[6,9] but contains potassium.[7] Calcium hydroxide is produced as a byproduct of hydration reaction of MTA and PC, which is mainly responsible for its biological action and biocompatibility. This calcium hydroxide is also responsible of high pH (12.5-12.9) of the end product of hydration reaction.[10,11] The pH of MTA immediately after manipulation with distilled and deionized water is 10.2, increasing to 12.5 after 3 h and then remain constant.[12] Almost similarly, the pH of PC rises from that of 7-12.3 after mixing with water and continues

1

MTA versus Portland cement

Chakraborty

rising to a maximum pH of 12.9 after 3 h.[4] The other oxides such as ferric and magnesium oxide present in both MTA and PC provides an additional source of hydroxyl ions responsible of their higher pH.[4] Though there are mild variations of pH between gray and white MTA and PC, but it seems that doesn’t have much clinical significance.

experimental groups. They concluded that the sealing ability promoted by the 3 cements was similar and no cement was able to produce a fluid-tight seal.[19] White PC does not meet the ISO standard of radiopacity because of its poor radio-opaque character. In most of the current studies, PC is modified with the addition of 20% BO to get the radiopacity. A study evaluated the radiopacity of PC associated with BO, zinc oxide, lead oxide, bismuth subnitrate, bismuth carbonate, barium sulfate, iodoform, calcium tungstate, and zirconium oxide. A ratio of 20% radiopacifier and 80% white PC by weight was used for analysis. Pure PC and dentin are kept as controls. PC/BO and PC/lead oxide presented the highest radiopacity values.[20] Interestingly this addition of BO does not alter the biocompatibility of MTA or PC.[21] Subcutaneous connective tissue reactions toward of MTA, PC, and PC plus BO and the radiopacity of those three materials were evaluated in a study. The result showed MTA is little more radio-opaque than PC plus BO and all the material including BO are biocompatible.[22] In another experiment, PC was added with other radio-opaque agents in place of BO like zirconium oxide, calcium tungstate, and strontium carbonate to observe the setting time and compression strength changes. It has been observed that all these radio-opaque agents gives PC a similar radio-opacity as well as better short-term (24 h) and longterm (21 days) compressing strength than addition of BO, and these compressive strengths are almost equivalent to set MTA and PC without addition of radio-opaque agents. It has also been observed that initial setting time is enhanced with addition of those materials in comparison to setting time of unmodified PC and MTA, though the final setting time is negligibly higher when comparing with unmodified PC and MTA. In the same study, it has also been observed that the compressive strength of MTA at 21 days is 43.4 MPa and the compressive strength of PC was 41.2 MPa.[23]

Physical Properties The compressive strength, setting time, dimensional changes, and radio-opacity of MTA and PC have been compared in many studies. Compressive strength of MTA and PC that developed in a period of 28 days are more than 50 MPa. The strength of set MTA is slightly higher than PC.[9] Close similarity of setting characteristic of MTA and PC has been observed in many publications. Though MTA shows slightly higher setting time than PC, but the different is statistically insignificant.[9] PC is having calcium chloride, calcium nitrate, calcium formate as an accelerator, but unmodified (without addition of Calcium chloride) PC and MTA shows almost equal compressive strength and PC has faster setting time.[9] It is interesting to observe that the addition of metallic phase like gold or silver amalgam in PC leads to reduced setting time and increased compressive strength.[13,14] In a recent study PC, PC with 2 and 5% calcium sulfate and MTA were compared for their setting time using Gilmore needles weighing 113.5 G and 456.5 G. The available data were analyzed through Tukey’s test. The shortest initial and final setting time was observed in PC followed by PC with 2% calcium sulfate, then PC with 5% calcium sulfate, and then MTA in the increasing order.[15] The micro-leakage and sealing ability of both the materials have been evaluated by many using different parameters. The better the sealing ability of a material the better it will prevent micro-leakage and the setting expansion of a material aids to its better sealing ability. In an experiment, Storm et al. showed that in water immersion for 24 h, setting expansion of PC is 0.29%, gray MTA is 1.02%, and white MTA is 0.08%.[16] The pulp chambers of 36 human mandibular molar teeth (15 sealed with MTA and 15 sealed with PC and 5 kept in control group) were accessed using a polymicrobial leakage model. The result showed no statistical significant difference between the two groups, concluding that PC and MTA have a similar ability to seal furcal perforations.[17] In another experiment, flow porometry analysis was used in an in vitro apexification model, using MTA, MTA with 10% CaCl2 accelerator, PC, PC with 10% CaCl2 accelerator. The maximum and mean flow pore diameters of the samples were tested by capillary flow porometry at 90 min and 48 h. There was no statistically significant difference found in the maximum pore diameter of MTA and PC at 90 min and 48 h.[18] De-Deus et al. experimented possible microleakage through sealing of furcal perforations using PC, white Angelus MTA, MTA Bio in extracted human molar teeth. Leakage was measured by the movement of an air bubble traveling within a pipette connected to the teeth. The results showed that there was no significant difference in mean fluid flow between the

Antimicrobial Property and Biocompatibility While testing for antimicrobial potentiality MTA and PC both have shown almost no antimicrobial activity against Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli in Agar diffusion test.[24] Whereas in another agar diffusion test Tanomaru-Filho et al. found both MTA and PC has antimicrobial activity against Micrococcus luteus, S. aureus, E. coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and C. albicans.[25] In another experiment Muller-Hinton agar diffusion test was used and it has been seen that both MTA and PC can only able to inhibit E coli.[26] Several publications are available which showed that PC and MTA are equally biocompatible. Tissue reaction of MTA and PC are tested through bone implantations of freshly mixed MTA and PC in bony cavities of the mandibles of guinea pigs and this mix is also added to culture plates with attached L929 cells. When evaluated in both vitro and in vivo tests, MTA, and PC showed comparative biocompatibility.[27] MTA and PC were interacted with Endothelial ECV 304 cells to evaluate their cytotoxic level. Both the material showed an initial mild cytotoxic activity which reduced with time.[28] In a study 2

Chakraborty


which dealt with the cellular effects of PC on cultured human pulp cells, no cytotoxicity was observed in the PC. Whereas in the same study other materials like glass ionomer cement, intermediate restorative material, and Dycal showed cellular survival rate was less than 40% on direct contact with pulp cell. In addition to the better biocompatibility of PC, this study showed that it allows the expression of mineralization related genes on cultured human pulp cells, and has the potential to be used as a proper hard tissue developing material in dental treatment.[29] In an another experiment, Chinese hamster ovary cells were exposed to MTA and white PC at a concentration ranging from 1 to 1000 μg/mL for 1 h at 37°C. MTA and PC did not show genotoxic effects in all concentrations evaluated and no significant differences in cytotoxicity were observed in MTA and PC.[30] Bio-mineralization ability of 3 types of MTA, PC with 20% BO, and PC with 10% CaCl2 was evaluated by filling cavities in dentin disks and keeping them immersed in phosphate buffered solution (PBS) for 2 months. An scanning electron microscope observation was done for apatite formation by the cement-PBS system and concluded that all the cements were almost equally bioactive.[31] More recently bioactivity of two types of MTA, PC with BO, and PC with 10% CaCl2 were tested by filling these materials in seventy-two human dentin tubes and implanted subcutaneously on dorsal area of 18 rats. 30, 60, and 90 days follow-up observation showed mineral deposition in the material-dentin interface and the subsequent formation of intertubular mineralization. The researchers concluded that all cements tested are bioactive and both MTA cements were more effective than two types of PC in 30 and 60 days observation.[32]

Animal Studies The first classical animal study was carried out by Holland et al. implanted human dentine tubes (done by reducing extracted tooth roots), filled with MTA, PC, and CH in the jaws of rat. Exactly same kind of calcific deposition is seen at the apex of those tubes when observed under SEM at intervals on weeks and months.[36] In another study, 18 teeth of a dog pulpotomized, and MTA and PC pulpotomy done dividing them into two groups. The teeth were restored. After 60 days, formation of hard tissue bridges and retaining of the vitality of pulp is seen in all cases where fillings were not dislodged.[37] In a similar study, 76 dog teeth was pulpotomized using pro-root MTA, MTA-Angelus, gray PC, and white PC. Pulp vitality was maintained in all specimens and the pulp had healed with a hard tissue bridge.[38] Shayegan et al. get the similar result of pulpal tissue repair with hard tissue formation when they used white MTA, white PC and Beta tricalcium phosphate on pulpotomized primary teeth of pigs.[39] They also made pulp capping using the same materials in forty primary teeth of pigs and observed same result of pulpal preservation with hard tissue formation in all materials.[40] New bone formation was observed which was characterized by osteoid formation, osteoblastic rimming, and formation of new bone trabeculae around a surgically created bony cavity in mandible of a dog filled with accelerated PC (APC), indicating possible use of APC as bone substitute.[41] Successful and similar type of perforation repair found in deliberately perforated dog’s teeth using WPC, PC Type II, Type V, and MTA (as control). Histological analysis showed no significant differences in the amount and histology of newly formed bone in all materials.[42] Lately Bidar et al. carried out pulpotomies in 64 dog’s premolars using gray and white MTA and gray and white PC. They concluded that all of those materials used in the study were equally effective as pulp protection materials following direct pulp capping in dog teeth.[43] An experimentally manufactured PC was developed as an alternative to MTA by the Turkish Cement Manufacturers Association with pure components such as clay or chalk are taken directly from nature, including the arsenic; which appeared in PC. This PC and MTA were implanted beneath the dorsal skin of rats containing in sterile polythene tubes. The tubes were removed after 7, 14, and 28 days to observe the reaction of those materials to the surrounding tissue. Tissue reactions associated with both the materials were comparable. Initial inflammatory processes decreased significantly after 28 days, suggesting that both materials are equally biocompatible.[44]

Arsenic Release Concerning about the presence of arsenic, few researches have shown that set MTA and PC both release arsenic in an aqueous medium. However, the amount of release is much lower than set limit by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/FDA, which is 0.01 ppm for arsenic in drinking water. In one study, three types of PC, MTA angelus, and pro root MTA had been analyzed for arsenic release. The result shows that mean release of arsenic from all the materials are 0.002 ppm at 168 h. Only one kind of PC showed release of 0.007 ppm. All of which are much below the permissible level of EPA.[33] In other study, the arsenic release is observed in white PC (0.52 mg/Kg), white MTAobtura (0.39 mg/Kg), and white MTA angelus (1.03 mg/Kg). All of them are much lower than ISO standard limit for arsenic release in water based cements(2mg/Kg), whereas, pro-root MTA(5.25 mg/Kg), gray MTA-angelus(5.91 mg/Kg), and gray PC (34.27 mg/Kg) showed their release of arsenic little higher than permitted level.[34] De-Deus et al. tested four most common commercially available MTA and two brands of white PC from Brazil for presence of arsenic and concluded that Gray MTAAngelus, Gray Pro Root MTA, and one brand of PC does not contain arsenic and all other material tested have very negligible presence of arsenic.[35]

Clinical Trials Soon after the report of in vitro apical plug using MTA and PC by PZA Coneglian et al.,[45] where MTA and PC showed the similar result, De-Deus et al. tried first clinical trial of apical plugging in an immature upper right second premolar tooth apex using PC. 1-year follow-up of that case revealed adequate clinical function, absence of clinical symptoms, and no signs of periapical rarefaction.[46] Four anterior teeth with open apex 3


Chakraborty

teeth pulpotomies. The limitation of MTA is its extended setting time, higher cost, difficulty in storage, and only be used in lowstress bearing areas.[55] Gingival and tooth discoloration were reported from use of both, gray and White MTA.[56,57] PC is mainly composed of 65% lime, 20% silica, 10% aluminum and ferric oxide, and 5% other compounds. Two major constituents are tricalcium silicate (3CaOSiO2) and dicalcium silicate (2CaO-SiO2). PC sets through a hydration reaction in two stages, exactly similar that of MTA.[58] Gray PC is of 5 types from Type I to Type V. Though Type I PC is pure PC, but all the types contain some amount of heavy metals. White PC is manufactured from purest raw materials (kaolinite with very low iron content) and contains no C4AF (ferric-calcium aluminate phase) and very Low MgO. The heavy metal content of WPC is almost similar to MTA.[59] The first study which used ordinary PC as a reference material to MTA has been published in 2000.[4] Since then there has been is an increasing number of published articles comparing MTA and PC. Searching PubMed and MedLine electronic database we found that there was 1 in the year 2000. Then it is increasing every year to 10 or more articles per year since 2007. We found more than 100 articles comparing several parameters between different types of MTA and PC. We have included 67 articles in this review. Many publications that have similar outcome with several included articles have not been mentioned to reduce the volume of this review. The included studies analyze the comparative analysis of chemical, physical, and mechanical properties along with microleakage and sealing ability has been evaluated using several parameters. Heavy metal including the arsenic content of these materials has also been analyzed. Animal studies and recently clinical application has also been evaluating. We have detailed those comparative studies above in this manuscript. Most of the articles found the similarity of properties and tissue reactions between these two materials though a few analysis of MTA when compared with PC showed some differences. Interestingly, the number of articles that found dissimilarity between these two materials was very few. The main components of MTA and PC were analyzed through X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis and concluded that PC cannot replace MTA as it contains more toxic heavy metals and are composed of particles with a wide range of size, whereas MTA showed a uniform and smaller particle size.[60] Describing the characterization of hydration product Camilleri commented that The hydration mechanism of MTA is different to that of PC and MTA produces a high proportion of Ca ions than PC, as a by-product of hydration and MTA releases, over several weeks, more calcium ions than white PC while white PC releases nearly no bismuth ions.[61] Analysis of the presence of 10 heavy metals showed that GPC have much higher heavy metal than WPC,GMTA, and WMTA. The WPC is also contains little more heavy meals than WMTA.[62] The white MTA Angelus and MTA bio has the shortest setting times, higher pH, and more calcium ion release in comparison to light cured MTA and PC with 20% BO.[63] MTA was found to

were treated with single step apexification plug using WPC. 3 to 24 months follow-up demonstrated successful apical repair.[47] In another clinical trial, the author and his associates used White PC with 20% BO as an apical plug in three non-vital upper central incisors with radiographic apical pathosis. Three to 6 months follow-up showed total healing of radiographic apical pathosis and the teeth become symptom-free.[48] Successful pulpotomy was done in several mandibular molars using PC, that has shown to retain their vitality, clinically, and radiographically, after a 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up.[49] Pulpotomy was carried out in 29 mandibular primary molars using MTA (14 teeth) and PC (15 teeth). No statistical difference was found regarding dentin bridge formation in pulpotomized teeth in 6 to 24 month’s follow-up. The author suggested that PC can be substituted in place of MTA as an effective and cheaper material in primary molar pulpotomies.[50] Thirty cases of perforations in permanent molars in Mashhad Dental School Clinic had been treated with PC and MTA in equally divided group. Six months follow-up showed only one failure in each group showed that PC is equally effective as MTA in repairing dental perforations.[51] Recently pulpotomy has been carried out in 45 primary molars using MTA, PC, and Ca(OH)2. 6, 12 and 24 months clinical and radiographic follow-up showed 100% success rate in pulpotomies done using MTA and PC. Histologic analysis revealed the presence of dentine-like mineralized material deposition obliterating the root canal in the PC and MTA groups, whereas Ca(OH)2 pulptomies resulted in failures in most of the cases.[52] 86 patients with deep carious lesion were treated with indirect pulp capping procedure using medical PC, MTA, and Ca(OH)2. After 6 months, color, humidity, consistency of dentin, and microbiological (Lactobacilli/Mutans Strep. counts) were recorded and evaluated. The study concluded that the treatment for deep carious lesions preferably should be done with nonresorbing materials such as MTA or medical PC.[53] Discussion In 1993, MTA was described for the first time in dental literature.[1] MSDS of Commercial MTA materials such as ProRoot MTA, MTA Angelus, etc., shows that all MTA’s are a mixture of 75-80% of pure PC (CAS # 65997-15-1), 20% BO, and in some products 5% CaSo4. Though no information about production processes of included PC are available. MTA sets through a hydration reaction in two stages, initially by hydration of anhydrous mineral oxide compounds and later by crystallization of hydrates. The initial reaction could be expressed as: 2(3CaO.SiO2)+6H2O → 3CaO.2SiO2.3H2O+3Ca(OH)2. And the delayed reaction as: 2(2CaO.SiO2)+4H2O → 3CaO.2SiO2.3H2O+Ca(OH)2.[10,54] MTA is already established to be a very good biocompatible material with excellent potential to use in pulp capping, pulpotomy procedure, as a perforation restorative material, in apexification procedure, and apical sealing in management of open apex non-vital tooth. Studies have also shown that MTA showed an excellent clinical and radiographic success in primary 4

Chakraborty


be much less soluble than two types of PC in water immersion for a different period of time. The same study shows that the microhardness of MTA is significantly higher than PC type I and Type II.[64] A review that included 156 citations from January 1990 to August 2006 leaded to a conclusion that substitution of MTA by PC is discouraged,[65] though they have undertaken only two articles which support the possibility of replacement MTA by PC.[9,66] In another detailed review, it was concluded that PC can be a possible replacement for MTA, but the type of PC, which is more comparable to MTA has to be determined first through further researches.[67] MTA is an excellent material for several endodontic uses, especially dental hard tissue repair. PC is also have shown similar characteristics to MTA with respect to its composition, biocompatibility, and through animal and clinical studies. The disadvantage of PC is its lower radio-opacity, and the main advantage is the cost. Practically the cost of single treatment of MTA is 60-75 USD, which is almost impossible to spent by world’s most population for single dental visit. A cheaper substitute of MTA will certainly benefit millions of people, especially most of the patients in developing countries, who cannot bear the cost of MTA. At present several researches establish that PC is similar to commercially available MTA in its basic composition, physical, chemical characteristics, and in biocompatibility. Though several articles recommended for substituting MTA materials by PC for clinical use, but no reason has been found to substitute MTA at present. Rather PC can be used as a cheaper alternative whenever required, but few parameters regarding the use of PC as a MTA alternative has to be further investigated and established. They are (a) the type of PC can be used, though WPC is used in most investigations. (b) How to achieve uniform particle size when using commercially available PC. (c) Effect of added BO in Modified PC in its hydration reaction and tooth discoloration. (d) A lot more controlled clinical trials are required to establish its clinical success comparable to MTA.

cement: Two compatible filling materials. J Endod 1999;25:308 (abstract). 4. Estrela C, Bammann LL, Estrela CR, Silva RS, Pécora JD. Antimicrobial and chemical study of MTA, Portland cement, calcium hydroxide paste, Sealapex and Dycal. Braz Dent J 2000;11:3-9. 5. Asgary S, Parirokh M, Eghbal MJ, Brink F. A comparative study of white mineral trioxide aggregate and white Portland cements using X-ray microanalysis. Aust Endod J 2004;30:89-92. 6. Camilleri J, Montesin FE, Di Silvio L, Pitt Ford TR. The chemical constitution and biocompatibility of accelerated Portland cement for endodontic use. Int Endod J 2005;38:834-42. 7. Song JS, Mante FK, Romanow WJ, Kim S. Chemical analysis of powder and set forms of Portland cement, gray proroot MTA, white proroot MTA, and gray MTA-Angelus. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;102:809-15. 8. Islam I, Chng HK, Yap AU. X-ray diffraction analysis of mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement. Int Endod J 2006;39:220-5. 9. Islam I, Chng HK, Yap AU. Comparison of the physical and mechanical properties of MTA and Portland cement. J Endod 2006;32:193-7. 10. Camilleri J. Hydration mechanisms of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2007;40:462-70. 11. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Rueggeberg FA, Loushine RJ, Weller RN. Calcium phosphate phase transformation produced by the interaction of the Portland cement component of white mineral trioxide aggregate with a phosphate-containing fluid. J Endod 2007;33:1347-51. 12. Parirokh M, Torabinejad M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: A comprehensive literature review – Part I: Chemical, physical, and antibacterial properties. J Endod 2010;36:16-27. 13. Camilleri J. Evaluation of the physical properties of an endodontic Portland cement incorporating alternative radiopacifiers used as root-end filling material. Int Endod J 2010;43:231-40. 14. Machado DF, Bertassoni LE, Souza EM, Almeida JB, Rached RN. Effect of additives on the compressive strength and setting time of a Portland cement. Braz Oral Res 2010;24:158-64. 15. Bramante CM, Kato MM, Assis GF, Duarte MA, Bernardineli N, Moraes IG, et al. Biocompatibility and setting time of CPMMTA and white Portland cement clinker with or without calcium sulfate. J Appl Oral Sci 2013;21:32-6. 16. Storm B, Eichmiller FC, Tordik PA, Goodell GG. Setting expansion of gray and white mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement. J Endod 2008;34:80-2. 17. De-Deus G, Petruccelli V, Gurgel-Filho E, Coutinho-Filho T. MTA versus Portland cement as repair material for furcal perforations: A laboratory study using a polymicrobial leakage model. Int Endod J 2006;39:293-8. 18. Hong ST, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Lee W. Microleakage of accelerated mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement in an in vitro apexification model. J Endod 2008;34:56-8. 19. De-Deus G, Reis C, Brandão C, Fidel S, Fidel RA. The ability of Portland cement, MTA, and MTA Bio to prevent throughand-through fluid movement in repaired furcal perforations. J Endod 2007;33:1374-7. 20. Húngaro Duarte MA, de Oliveira El Kadre GD, Vivan RR, Guerreiro Tanomaru JM, Tanomaru Filho M, de Moraes IG. Radiopacity of Portland cement associated with different radiopacifying agents. J Endod 2009;35:737-40.

Conclusion The existing researches show that PC, rather WPC has a great potential to be used as an alternative material to MTA. Those literatures give a firm base for further well-designed clinical trials. However, proper selection of material and lot more clinical trials are required to establish PC as an alternative to MTA to appropriate medical/dental regulatory authorities as a permitted material for clinical use. References 1. Lee SJ, Monsef M, Torabinejad M. Sealing ability of a mineral trioxide aggregate for repair of lateral root perforations. J Endod 1993;19:541-4. 2. Torabinejad M, Hong CU, McDonald F, Pitt Ford TR. Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material. J Endod 1995;21:349-53. 3. Wucherpfennig AL, Green DB. Mineral trioxide vs. Portland

5


Chakraborty

21. Hwang YC, Lee SH, Hwang IN, Kang IC, Kim MS, Kim SH, et al. Chemical composition, radiopacity, and biocompatibility of Portland cement with bismuth oxide. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:e96-102. 22. Coutinho-Filho T, De-Deus G, Klein L, Manera G, Peixoto C, Gurgel-Filho ED. Radiopacity and histological assessment of Portland cement plus bismuth oxide. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:e69-77. 23. Tanomaru-Filho M, Morales V, da Silva GF, Bosso R, Reis JM, Duarte MA, et al. Compressive strength and setting time of MTA and Portland cement associated with different radiopacifying agents. ISRN Dent 2012;2012:898051. 24. Miyagak DC, de Carvalho EM, Robazza CR, Chavasco JK, Levorato GL. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of endodontic sealers. Braz Oral Res 2006;20:303-6. 25. Tanomaru-Filho M, Tanomaru JM, Barros DB, Watanabe E, Ito IY. In vitro antimicrobial activity of endodontic sealers, MTAbased cements and Portland cement. J Oral Sci 2007;49:41-5. 26. Sipert CR, Hussne RP, Nishiyama CK, Torres SA. In vitro antimicrobial activity of Fill Canal, Sealapex, Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Portland cement and EndoRez. Int Endod J 2005;38:539-43. 27. Saidon J, He J, Zhu Q, Safavi K, Spångberg LS. Cell and tissue reactions to mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95:483-9. 28. De Deus G, Ximenes R, Gurgel-Filho ED, Plotkowski MC, Coutinho-Filho T. Cytotoxicity of MTA and Portland cement on human ECV 304 endothelial cells. Int Endod J 2005;38:604-9. 29. Min KS, Kim HI, Park HJ, Pi SH, Hong CU, Kim EC. Human pulp cells response to Portland cement in vitro. J Endod 2007;33:163-6. 30. Ribeiro DA, Sugui MM, Matsumoto MA, Duarte MA, Marques ME, Salvadori DM. Genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of mineral trioxide aggregate and regular and white Portland cements on Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;101:258-61. 31. Reyes-Carmona JF, Felippe MS, Felippe WT. Biomineralization ability and interaction of mineral trioxide aggregate and white Portland cement with dentin in a phosphate-containing fluid. J Endod 2009;35:731-6. 32. Dreger LA, Felippe WT, Reyes-Carmona JF, Felippe GS, Bortoluzzi EA, Felippe MC. Mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement promote biomineralization in vivo. J Endod 2012;38:324-9. 33. Duarte MA, De Oliveira Demarchi AC, Yamashita JC, Kuga MC, De Campos Fraga S. Arsenic release provided by MTA and Portland cement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:648-50. 34. Monteiro Bramante C, Demarchi AC, de Moraes IG, Bernadineli N, Garcia RB, Spångberg LS, et al. Presence of arsenic in different types of MTA and white and gray Portland cement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:909-13. 35. De-Deus G, de Souza MC, Sergio Fidel RA, Fidel SR, de Campos RC, Luna AS. Negligible expression of arsenic in some commercially available brands of Portland cement and mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 2009;35:887-90. 36. Holland R, deSouza V, Nery MJ, Faraco IM, Estrada Bernabé PF, Otoboni Filho JA, et al. Reaction of rat connective tissue to

implanted dentin tube filled with MTA, Portland cement or calzium hydroxide. Braz Dent J 2001;12:3-8. 37. Holland R, de Souza V, Murata SS, Nery MJ, Bernabé PF, Otoboni Filho JA, et al. Healing process of dog dental pulp after pulpotomy and pulp covering with mineral trioxide aggregate or Portland cement. Braz Dent J 2001;12:109-13. 38. Menezes R, Bramante CM, Letra A, Carvalho VG, Garcia RB. Histologic evaluation of pulpotomies in dog using two types of mineral trioxide aggregate and regular and white Portland cements as wound dressings. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98:376-9. 39. Shayegan A, Petein M, Abbeele AV. Beta-tricalcium phosphate, white mineral trioxide aggregate, white Portland cement, ferric sulfate, and formocresol used as pulpotomy agents in primary pig teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:536-42. 40. Shayegan A, Petein M, Vanden Abbeele A. The use of betatricalcium phosphate, white MTA, white Portland cement and calcium hydroxide for direct pulp capping of primary pig teeth. Dent Traumatol 2009;25:413-9. 41. Dokami S, Raoofi S, Ashraf MJ, Khorshidi H. Histological analysis of the effect of accelerated portland cement as a bone graft substitute on experimentally-created three-walled intrabony defects in dogs. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2007;1:131-5. 42. Silva Neto JD, Schnaider TB, Gragnani A, Paiva AP, Novo NF, Ferreira LM. Portland cement with additives in the repair of furcation perforations in dogs. Acta Cir Bras 2012;27:809-14. 43. Bidar M, Naghavi N, Mohtasham N, Sheik-Nezami M, Fallahrastegar A, Afkhami F, et al. Mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement for direct pulp capping in dog: A histopathological evaluation. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2014;8:134-40. 44. Koçak S, Erten H, Baris E, Türk S, Alaçam T. Evaluation of the biocompatibility of experimentally manufactured Portland cement: An animal study. J Clin Exp Dent 2014;6:e17-21. 45. Coneglian PZ, Orosco FA, Bramante CM, de Moraes IG, Garcia RB, Bernardineli N. In vitro sealing ability of white and gray mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and white Portland cement used as apical plugs. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15:181-5. 46. De-Deus G, Coutinho-Filho T. The use of white Portland cement as an apical plug in a tooth with a necrotic pulp and wide-open apex: A case report. Int Endod J 2007;40:653-60. 47. Hegde RS, Chandra S, Rao R. Single step apexification using white Portland cement: Case series. Endodontology 2010;22:107-11. 48. Chakraborty A, Dey B, Dhar R, Sardar P. Healing of apical rarefaction of three non-vital open apex anterior teeth using a white Portland cement apical plug. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3:S177-81. 49. Conti TR, Sakai VT, Fornetti AP, Moretti AB, Oliveira TM, Lourenço Neto N, et al. Pulpotomies with Portland cement in human primary molars. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:66-9. 50. Sakai VT, Moretti AB, Oliveira TM, Fornetti AP, Santos CF, Machado MA, et al. Pulpotomy of human primary molars with MTA and Portland cement: A randomised controlled trial. Br Dent J 2009;207:E5. 51. Bidar M, Sedigh M, Zarei M. A comparative study on the clinical success of restorations with MTA and gray Portland cement in permanent molar perforations. J Isfahan Dent Sch 2010;6;165-72.

6

Chakraborty


52. Oliveira TM, Moretti AB, Sakai VT, Lourenço Neto N, Santos CF, Machado MA, et al. Clinical, radiographic and histologic analysis of the effects of pulp capping materials used in pulpotomies of human primary teeth. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2013;14:65-71. 53. Petrou MA, Alhamoui FA, Welk A, Altarabulsi MB, Alkilzy M, H Splieth C. A randomized clinical trial on the use of medical Portland cement, MTA and calcium hydroxide in indirect pulp treatment. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1383-9. 54. Lee YL, Lee BS, Lin FH, Yun Lin A, Lan WH, Lin CP. Effects of physiological environments on the hydration behavior of mineral trioxide aggregate. Biomaterials 2004;25:787-93. 55. Camilleri J, Montesin FE, Juszczyk AS, Papaioannou S, Curtis RV, Donald FM, et al. The constitution, physical properties and biocompatibility of modified accelerated cement. Dent Mater 2008;24:341-50. 56. Bortoluzzi EA, Araújo GS, Guerreiro Tanomaru JM, TanomaruFilho M. Marginal gingiva discoloration by gray MTA: A case report. J Endod 2007;33:325-7. 57. Felman D, Parashos P. Coronal tooth discoloration and white mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 2013;39:484-7. 58. Taylor HF. Cement Chemistry. 2nd ed. London: Thomas Telford; 1997. 59. Schembri M, Peplow G, Camilleri J. Analyses of heavy metals in mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement. J Endod 2010;36:1210-5. 60. Dammaschke T, Gerth HU, Züchner H, Schäfer E. Chemical

and physical surface and bulk material characterization of white ProRoot MTA and two Portland cements. Dent Mater 2005;21:731-8. 61. Camilleri J. Characterization of hydration products of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2008;41:408-17. 62. Chang SW, Shon WJ, Lee W, Kum KY, Baek SH, Bae KS. Analysis of heavy metal contents in gray and white MTA and 2 kinds of Portland cement: A preliminary study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109:642-6. 63. Vivan RR, Zapata RO, Zeferino MA, Bramante CM, Bernardineli N, Garcia RB, et al. Evaluation of the physical and chemical properties of two commercial and three experimental root-end filling materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110:250-6. 64. Danesh G, Dammaschke T, Gerth HU, Zandbiglari T, Schäfer E. A comparative study of selected properties of ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate and two Portland cements. Int Endod J 2006;39:213-9. 65. Roberts HW, Toth JM, Berzins DW, Charlton DG. Mineral trioxide aggregate material use in endodontic treatment: A review of the literature. Dent Mater 2008;24:149-64. 66. Abdullah D, Ford TR, Papaioannou S, Nicholson J, McDonald F. An evaluation of accelerated Portland cement as a restorative material. Biomaterials 2002;23:4001-10. 67. Steffen R, van Waes H. Understanding mineral trioxide aggregate/Portland-cement: A review of literature and background factors. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2009;10:93-7.

7