Venditti A¹*, Ragazzoni FM² and Venditti A Jr³

¹DDS, Specialist in Paediatric Dentistry, Private Practice, Italy
²DDS, Private Practice, Italy
³Dental Hygienist, Private Practice, Italy

*Corresponding Author: Venditti A, DDS, Specialist in Paediatric Dentistry, Private Practice, Italy.

Received: June 21, 2021; Published: July 19, 2021

Abstract

Introduction: The second generation bioceramic materials are inorganic silicates able to stimulate the production of hydroxyapatite. They have antibacterial properties, short grip time, dimensional expansion capacity after hardening, are hydrophilic and have a compression resistance similar to dentine. The aim of the study is a systematic review of the literature on the use of second-generation bioceramics in the treatment of permanent dentary elements at immature apex.

Materials and Methods: A systematic review of the literature has been carried out through the databases Pubmed, Medline, Scopus and Google Scholar according to the guidelines of the PRISMA statement, selecting all published RCT within 10 years until 1 April 2021 regarding the use of second-generation bioceramics in the pulp treatments of immature permanent dental elements.

Results: In the treatment of capping of the vital pulp, 100% of immature permanent elements treated with second-generation bioceramics maintain pulp vitality and show physiological root development at a follow up of 12 months, compared to 89.36% of the teeth treated with calcium hydroxide and MTA. In the treatment of apicogenesis, 90.4% of immature teeth treated with second-generation bioceramics show physiological root development at a follow-up of 24 months, compared to 89.9% of the elements treated with calcium hydroxide. In the treatment of apecification, the formation of the apical plug to a follow of 24 months takes place in 100% of cases either using second-generation bioceramics or using MTA. The release of periapical calcium during the curing time is higher using the new bioceramics then MTA. The elements with immature apices, show a greater resistance to the fracture when they are obturated with bioceramics of second generation then MTA. The resistance increases when silicates are used both in the formation of the apical plug and for radicular back filling.

Discussion and Conclusion: Second-generation bioceramics have numerous advantages over conventional materials used in the treatment of immature permanent dental elements, including reduced uptake time, increased dimensional expansion with improved apical seal, greater resistance to compression and fracture and greater biocompatibility with better maintenance of the clean vitality.

Keywords: Bioceramic; Immature Teeth; Open Apex; Vital Pulp Cupping; Apexogenesis, Apecification

References

1. Marga R and Schwartz R. “Clinical applications of bioceramic materials in endodontics”. Endodontic Practice1 (2015): 1-9.
2. Hench L., et al. “Bonding Mechanisms at the Interface of Ceramic Prosthetic Materials”. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research1 (1971): 117-141.
3. Niu LN., et al. “A review of the bioactivity of hydraulic calcium silicate cements”. Journal of Dentistry5 (2014): 517-533.
4. Torabinejad M., et al. “Physical and Chemical Properties of a New Root- End Filling Material”. Journal of Endodontics 21 (1995): 349-353.
5. Ha WN., et al. “Mineral Trioxide Aggregate-A Review of Properties and Testing Methodologies”. Materials11 (2017): 1261.
6. Kaur M., et al. “MTA versus Biodentine: Review of Literature with a Comparative Analysis”. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research8 (2017): ZG01-ZG05.
7. Gallusi G., et al. “Antibacterial activity of first and latest generation bioceramic sealers on the elimination of enterococcus faecalis: An in vitro study”. Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents3-1 (2020): 73-79.
8. Kahler B., et al. “Alkaline Materials and Regenerative Endodontics: A Review”. Materials12 (2017): 1389.
9. Niu LN., et al. “A review of the bioactivity of hydraulic calcium silicate cements”. Journal of Dentistry5 (2014): 517-533.
10. Atmeh AR., et al. “Dentin-cement interfacial interaction: calcium silicates and polyalkenoates”. Journal of Dental Research5 (2012): 454-459.
11. Bósio CC., et al. “Subcutaneous connective tissue reactions to iRoot SP, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Fillapex, DiaRoot BioAggregate and MTA”. International Endodontic Journal7 (2014): 667-674.
12. Zhang H., et al. “Antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers by modified direct contact test against Enterococcus faecalis”. Journal of Endodontics7 (2009): 1051-1055.
13. Keskin C., et al. “Color stabilities of calcium silicate-based materials in contact with different irrigation solutions”. Journal of Endodontics3 (2015): 409-411.
14. Stringhini Junior E., et al. “MTA and biodentine for primary teeth pulpotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials”. Clinical Oral Investigations4 (2019): 1967-1976.
15. Raghavendra SS., et al. “Bioceramics in endodontics - a review”. Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry3-1 (2017): S128-S137.
16. Kamel K and Abuzied R. “Managements of immature apex: a review”. Mod Research Dentistry 1 (2017): 7-27.
17. Guerrero F., et al. “Apexification: A systematic review”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry5 (2018): 462-465.
18. Hameed MH., et al. “Management of immature necrotic permanent teeth with regenerative endodontic procedures - a review of literature”. Journal of Pakistan Medical Association10 (2019): 1514-1520.
19. Kim SG., et al. “Regenerative endodontics: a comprehensive review”. International Endodontic Journal12 (2018): 1367-1388.
20. Hébert R., et al. “PRISMA-Estrie Group. The effectiveness of the PRISMA integrated service delivery network: preliminary report on methods and baseline data”. The International Journal of Integrated Care 8 (2008): e03.
21. Brizuela C., et al. “Direct Pulp Capping with Calcium Hydroxide, Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, and Biodentine in Permanent Young Teeth with Caries: A Randomized Clinical Trial”. Journal of Endodontics11 (2017): 1776-1780.
22. Yang Y., et al. “The effect of partial pulpotomy with iRoot BP Plus in traumatized immature permanent teeth: A randomized prospective controlled trial”. Dental Traumatology5 (2020): 518-525.
23. Tuloglu N and Bayrak S. “Comparative evaluation of mineral trioxide aggregate and bioaggregate as apical barrier material in traumatized nonvital, immature teeth: A clinical pilot study”. The Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice 1 (2016): 52-57.
24. Mapara PN., et al. “Comparative evaluation of calcium release of the apical plugs formed by mineral trioxide aggregate, Biodentine, and EndoSequence root repair material with and without 2% triple antibiotic powder: An in vitro study”. Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry 2 (2020): 132-137.
25. Tuna EB., et al. “Fracture resistance of immature teeth filled with BioAggregate, mineral trioxide aggregate and calcium hydroxide”. Dental Traumatology 3 (2011): 174-178.
26. Darak P., et al. “Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of simulated immature teeth and its effect on single visit apexification versus complete obturation using MTA and biodentine”. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 4 (2020): 2011-2015.

Citation

Citation: Venditti A., et al. “Second-Generation Bioceramics in the Treatment of Immature Permanent Teeth: Systematic Review of the Literature”. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 5.8 (2021): 65-72.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2021 Venditti A., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.