Clinical use of bioceramic materials

TLDR

Mineral trioxide aggregate was introduced in the mid‑1990s and has since expanded to orthograde root fillings, pulp capping, and other endodontic uses, but its mechanical differences and the limited literature on newer bioceramic and hybrid materials remain a concern. The review investigates the use, selection basis, and performance of bioceramic and hybrid materials in clinical endodontics. The authors synthesize evidence on these materials to guide their clinical application.

Abstract

Mineral trioxide aggregate ( MTA ) was the first bioceramic ( BC ) material introduced to clinical use as a root‐end filling material in endodontics in the mid‐1990s. Since then the indications for the use of MTA have widened, and several other bioceramic or “hybrid” materials have been introduced. Despite similarities, the materials also have several differences that affect their mechanical properties such as setting time and compressive strength, but all purely bioceramic materials are biocompatible. In addition to being used in retrograde fillings, these cements are nowadays also used as orthograde (apical) root fillings and in pulp capping, perforation repair, treatment of teeth with open apexes, and repair of resorption defects. With the exception of MTA , the literature on bioceramic materials is still relatively scarce, although it is rapidly growing. In recent years, bioceramic or hybrid sealers have been introduced, often based on the same chemical composition as bioceramic cements. This review focuses on the use of bioceramic and hybrid materials in clinical endodontics, the scientific foundation for their selection, and their application and performance in various clinical situations.