Mineral Trioxide Aggregate: Part 2 – A Review of the Material Aspects

Malhotra, Neeraj and Agarwal, Antara and *, Kundabala M (2013) Mineral Trioxide Aggregate: Part 2 – A Review of the Material Aspects. Compendium, 34 (3). pp. 2-11.

[img] PDF
101. Mineral Trioxide Aggregate_ Part 2 – A Review of the Material Aspects - Compendium - dentalAEGIS.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to Registered users only

Download (859kB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The purpose of this two-part series is to review the composition, properties, and products of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) materials. PubMed and MedLine electronic databases were used to identify scientific papers from January 1991 to May 2010. Based on the selected inclusion criteria, citations were referenced from the scientific peer-reviewed dental literature. Mineral trioxide aggregate is a refined form of the parent compound, Portland cement (PC), and demonstrates a strong biocompatibility due to the high pH level and the material’s ability to form hydroxyapatite. Mineral trioxide aggregate materials provide better microleakage protection than traditional endodontic materials as observed in findings from dye-leakage, fluid-filtration, protein-leakage, and bacterial penetration-leakage studies and has been recognized as a bioactive material. Various MTA commercial products are available, including gray mineral trioxide aggregate (GMTA), white mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA), and mineral trioxide aggregate-Angelus (AMTA). Although these materials are indicated for various dental uses and applications, long-term in-vivo clinical studies are needed. Part 1 of this article highlighted and discussed the composition and characteristics of the material. Part 2 provides an overview of commercially available MTA materials. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) was developed at Loma Linda University (Loma Linda, California, USA) and was first described in the dental scientific literature in 1993.1-3 The chemical composition of MTA was determined by Torabinejad et al.4 It received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 1998.1,2 As discussed in part 1 of this article, MTA possesses most of the required characteristics of an ideal endodontic material, which are: • a pH similar to calcium hydroxide (12.5)3 • a compressive strength equivalent to intermediate restorative material (IRM) and Super EBA4 • less microleakage and better sealing ability than amalgam, zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE), IRM, and conventional glass ionomer4,5 • biocompatibility5 • antibacterial and antimicrobial actions6 • regenerative potential with biologic activity3,5 • minimal solubility7 • radiopacity3,4 A variety of MTA products are on the market. The first commercially available product was gray mineral trioxide aggregate (GMTA), marketed as ProRoot® MTA (DENTSPLY Tulsa Dental, www.tulsadentalspecialties.com). To decrease the potential for tooth discoloration observed when GMTA is used in anterior teeth, an alternative formulation, known as tooth-colored MTA or white mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA) (DENTSPLY, www.denstply.com), was developed. Both products have demonstrated similar physicochemical and biologic properties, differing mainly in chemical composition.6 In 2001, MTAAngelus (Angelus Indústria de Produtos Odontológicos S/A, www.angelus.ind.br) was introduced. The color of this product was then changed to white and marketed as MTA Branco (MTAB) (Angelus Indústria de Produtos Odontológicos S/A). Part 2 of the review discusses MTA materials and briefly compares MTA with Portland cement (PC).

Item Type: Article
Subjects: Dentistry > MCODS Mangalore > Conservative Dentistry
Depositing User: KMCMLR User
Date Deposited: 30 Dec 2013 07:16
Last Modified: 30 Dec 2013 07:16
URI: http://eprints.manipal.edu/id/eprint/138132

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item