4.5 Article

Histological evaluation of hard tissue formation after direct pulp capping with a fast-setting mineral trioxide aggregate (RetroMTA) in humans

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 23, Issue 12, Pages 4289-4299

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02876-2

Keywords

Direct pulp capping; Hard tissue formation; Histology; Humans; RetroMTA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To histologically evaluate the morphology of the newly formed mineralized tissue and of the adjacent cells, in intact human teeth subjected to mechanical pulp exposure and capping with a fast-setting mineral trioxide aggregate (RetroMTA). Materials and methods Seven caries-free third molars from three adults were subjected to pulp exposure, direct capping with RetroMTA, and restoration with a composite resin. Seven months later, the teeth were clinically and radiographically evaluated, extracted, and subjected to histological processing and evaluation. Results All teeth were clinically and radiographically inconspicuous and showed no presence of severe inflammatory reactions. Bacteria were absent in all teeth. All cases exhibited some degree of mineralized tissue in the area of exposure to varying extent. This newly formed mineralized tissue was mostly atubular and did not display the features of regular dentine in any of the cases. No cells exhibiting the features of odontoblasts or odontoblast-like cells were observed. Instead, the cells exhibited a flat or cuboidal shape, resembling fibroblasts. Conclusions When the exposed pulps were directly capped with RetroMTA, the new calcified hard tissue was not regular dentine, and did not seem to be the product of genuine odontoblast differentiation. These results suggest that the formation of calcified tissues after direct pulp capping with RetroMTA may be more appropriately regarded as a reparative process than as a genuine regeneration response.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available