Comparative analysis of the biological effects of the endodontic bioactive cements MTA-Angelus, MTA Repair HP and NeoMTA Plus on human dental pulp stem cells.METHODS:
Thirty extracted primary molars were divided into five groups, each having two sets of three teeth (one first molar and two second molars). Pulpotomy and restorative options were randomly assigned: Biodentine plus Ketac Molar; NuSmile NeoMTA plus Tempit LC; NeoMTA Plus plus Fuji IX; MTA Angelus plus IRM capsule; MTA Flow plus IRM powder and liquid. After mixing one dose, pulp chambers of the first molar and one second molar were filled with a two-millimeter layer of bioactive cement and filling material (protocol A). The other second molar’s chamber was solo filled by a single mixed dose of bioactive cement (protocol B). The cost for each material was calculated independently, regardless of the group to which they belonged. A market assessment for primary molar crowns was performed, and a comparison table was produced.RESULTS:
For protocol A, the lowest mean cost per tooth (LMC) was obtained for NeoMTA cements and IRM powder and liquid; for solo bioactive cement pulp chamber filling, protocol (B), LMC was obtained for NeoMTA cements. Zirconia crowns were the costliest.CONCLUSION:
NeoMTA-type cements were the most cost-effective option for single-tooth pulpotomy. Zirconia crowns had the highest cost per tooth.