Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the biocompatibility of Endocem Zr® and ProRoot MTA® by histopathologic analysis in a canine model of pulpotomy. This study utilized 39 teeth of two beagle dogs. The exposed pulp tissues were treated by pulpotomy using ProRoot MTA (n=19) or Endocem Zr (n=20). After 8 weeks, the teeth were extracted and processed with hematoxylin-eosin staining for histologic evaluation. Most of the specimens in both groups developed a calcific barrier at the pulp amputation site and formed an odontoblast layer. However, some of the Endocem Zr specimens showed less calcific barrier formation with a greater inflammatory response and less odontoblast layer formation when compared with the ProRoot MTA specimens. ProRoot MTA and Endocem Zr specimens developed a calcific barrier; however, ProRoot MTA was more biocompatible than Endocem Zr.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
