Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Oct;16(4):1274-1280.
doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.12.011. Epub 2021 Jan 8.

Comparative study of pulpal responses to ProRoot MTA, Vitapex, and Metapex in canine teeth

Woojin Kwon  1 , Ik-Hwan Kim  1 , Chung-Min Kang  1 , Byurira Kim  1 , Yooseok Shin  2   3 , Je Seon Song  1   2
Affiliations

Comparative study of pulpal responses to ProRoot MTA, Vitapex, and Metapex in canine teeth

Woojin Kwon et al. J Dent Sci. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

Background/purpose: ProRoot MTA, Vitapex, and Metapex are widely used for pulp treatment of primary tooth. The aim of this study was to compare the pulpal responses to ProRoot MTA, Vitapex, and Metapex in a canine model of pulpotomy.

Materials and methods: Pulpotomy procedure was performed to 34 teeth (21 incisors and 13 premolars) and ProRoot MTA, Vitapex or Metapex was applicated to artificially exposed pulp tissues. After 13 weeks, the teeth were extracted and processed with hematoxylin-eosin staining for histologic evaluation. All specimens were evaluated in several categorys related to calcific barrier, inflammatory responses and the area of calcific barrier formation was measured.

Results: Most of the specimens in the ProRoot MTA group developed a calcific barrier at the pulp amputation site and showed a low level of inflammatory response. However, in comparison to ProRoot MTA group, a small amount of calcific barrier formed in Vitapex and Metapex groups.

Conclusion: This in vivo study found that Vitapex and Metapex induced similar pulpal responses but showed poor outcomes compared with using ProRoot MTA. Vitapex and Metapex are therefore not good substitutes for ProRoot MTA in direct pulp capping and pulpotomy.

Keywords: Metapex; ProRoot MTA; Pulpal response; Vitapex.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Hematoxylin-eosin staining for the evaluation of the histomorphologic characteristics of the newly formed calcific barrier (CB) after 13 weeks ((A–C): scale bars = 250 μm, (D–F): scale bars = 50 μm).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Calcific barrier area/coronal pulpal width for each material after 13 weeks. When the calcific barriers were standardized by coronal pulpal width, ProRoot MTA had a significantly higher value than Vitapex and Metapex. One-way ANOVA (P < 0.05) and the post-hoc Scheffé test (Bonferroni correction, P < 0.017) were performed for statistical analyses.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Tronstad L. Recent development in endodontic research. Scand J Dent Res. 1992;100:52–59. - PubMed
    1. Kubota K., Golden B.E., Penugonda B. Root canal filling materials for primary teeth: a review of the literature. ASDC (Am Soc Dent Child) J Dent Child. 1992;59:225–227. - PubMed
    1. Mortazavi M., Mesbahi M. Comparison of zinc oxide and eugenol, and Vitapex for root canal treatment of necrotic primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2004;14:417–424. - PubMed
    1. Subramaniam P., Gilhotra K. Endoflas, zinc oxide eugenol and metapex as root canal filling materials in primary molars—a comparative clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;35:365–370. - PubMed
    1. Davis S.R., Brayton S.M., Goldman M. The morphology of the prepared root canal: a study utilizing injectable silicone. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1972;34:642–648. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources