Evaluation of Inflammatory Bone Tissue Reaction to White MTA, Porthland Cement in Rabbits

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Endodontic, Dental Faculty, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 Department of Endodontic, Dental Faculty, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran


Background and Objective: White MTA, and Portland cement have similar chemical structures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inflammatory reaction of rabbit bone tissues to implanted white MTA, and Portland cement.
Subjects and Methods: In this in vivo study, twenty 1-year old male Iranian rabbits (experiment white Specie), were divided into 5 groups (4 in each group). After preparation of 3 holes (distance 2 cm- depth and diameter 2 mm) in tibia, the allocated groups received an intra-bony implant of the test materials (White MTA, or Portland cement) and the third hole, with no implant, was created to evaluate inflammatory reaction related to surgical trauma. Samples were processed for histological study after 7, 15, 30, 60, and 90 days. Furthermore, blood samples were taken for evaluation of systemic inflammation for ESR test. The results were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests.
Results: At similar time points, statistical analysis revealed significant difference between implanted material (white MTA , Portland cement)  in the first and second holes with control hole due to  bone tissue reaction but pair-wise evaluation Between all of implanted material found no significant differences. In different times bone tissue reaction showed significant differences.
Conclusions: The finding of this study demonstrated a similar tissue compatibility between both implantable materials and improvement of tissue healing occur with similar time profile after material implanting.


1-Yaltirik M, Ozbas H, Bilgic B. Reactions of Connective tissue to mineral trioxide aggregate and amalgam. J Endod 2004;30(2):95-9.
2-Kenneth M, Hargreaves, Stephen Cohen. Cohen’s Pathways of the pulp.10nd ed. Missouri: Mosby Elsevier. 2011:568-571.
3-Friedman S. Retrograde approaches in endodontic therapy. Endod Dent Traumatol1991;7(3):97-107.
4-Gartner AH, Dorn SO. Advances in endodontic surgery. Dent Clin North Am 1992;36(2):357-78.
5-Frank AL, Glick DH, Patterson SS. Long-term evaluation of surgically placed amalgam fillings. J Endod 1992;18(8):391-8.
6-Torabinejad M, Chivion N. Clinical applications of  mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 1999;25(3):197-205.
7-Funteas UR, Wallace JA, Fochtman EW. A Comprative analysis of mineral trioxide Aggregate and Portland cement. Aust Endod J 2003;29(1):43-4.
8-Dammaschke T, Gerth HU. Chemical and physical surface and bulk material charectrization of white Pro Root MTA and two Portland cements.  Dent Mater J 2005;21(8):731-8.
9-Camilleri J, Montesin FE. Biocompatibility of two commercial forms of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2004;37(10):699-704.
10-Holland R, De Souza V, Nery MJ. Reaction of rat connective tissue to implant dentin tube filled with mineral trioxide aggregate, Portland cement or calcium hydroxide. Braz Dent J 2001;12(1):3-8.
11-Holland R, De Souza V, Nert MJ. Reaction of rat connective tissue to implanted dentin tubes filled with mineral trioxide aggregate or calcium hydroxide. J Endod1999;25(3):161-6.
12-Holland R, Souza Vd, Nevy MJ. Reaction of rat Connective tissue to implanted dentin tubes filled with a white mineral trioxide aggregate. Braz Dent J 2002;13(1):23-6.
13-Perez AL, Spears R, Gutmann JL. Osteoblasts and MG-63 Osteosarcoma cells behave differently when in contact with ProRoot MTA and White MTA. Int Endod J 2003;36(8):564-70.
14-Javaheri Gh, Abedi H, Sattari M. Comparison of cell cytotoxicityof pro root MTA and Portland –Cement on human blood mononuclear cell. Dent J Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci 2005;23:562-68.
15-Moretton TR, Brown CE Jr, Legan JJ. Tissue reaction after subcutaneous and intraosseous implantation of mineral trioxide aggregate and ethoxybenzoic acid cement. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;52(3):528-33.
16-Yesilsoy C, Koren LZ, Morse DR. A Comprative tissue toxicity evaluation of established and newer root canal sealers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1988;65(4):459-67.
17-Zmener O, Guglielmotti MB, Cabnini RL. Biocompatibility of two calcium hydroxide-based endodontic sealers: a quantitative study in the subcutaneous connective tissue of the rat. J Endod1988;14(5):229-35.
18-Zmener O, Guglielmotti MB, Cabrini RL. Tissue response to an experimental calcium hydroxide–based endodontic sealer : A quantitative study in subcutaneous connective tissue of the rat. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6(2):66-72.
19-Torneck CD. Reaction of rat connective tissue to polyethylene tube implants. I. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1966;21:378-87.
20-Makkes PC, Van Velzen SK, Wesselink PR. Polyethylene tubes as a model for the root canal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1977;44(2):293-300.
21-Olsson B, Sliwkowski A, Langeland K. Subcutaneous implantation for the biological evaluation of endodontic materials. J Endod 1981;7(8):355-69.
22-Friend LA, Browne RM, Tissue reactions to some root filling materials. Br Dent J 1968;125(7):291-8.
23-Holland R, de Souza V, Nery MJ. Reaction of dogs' teeth to root canal filling with mineral trioxide aggregate or glass ionomer sealer. J Endod1999;25(11):728-30.
24-Torabinejad M, Ford TR, Abedi H. Tissue reaction to implanted root-end filling materials in the tibia and mandible of guinea pigs. J  Endod1998;24(7):468-71
25-Yamamoto M, Wanibe H, Nakata K. Newly developed mineral trioxide aggregate containing polyvinyl alcohol. Dent Mater J 2012;31(6):1014 -20.
26-Gandolfi M, Taddei P, Siboni F, Modena E, Ginebra MP. Fluoride-containing nanoporous calcium-silicate MTA cements for endodontics and oral surgery: early fluorapatite formation in a phosphate-containing solution. Int Endod J 2011;44(10):938–49.