Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 206
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 39-40

Author's reply


Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint-Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon

Date of Web Publication7-Aug-2013

Correspondence Address:
Issam Khalil
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint-Joseph University, Beirut
Lebanon
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Khalil I. Author's reply. Saudi Endod J 2013;3:39-40

How to cite this URL:
Khalil I. Author's reply. Saudi Endod J [serial online] 2013 [cited 2023 Feb 1];3:39-40. Available from: https://www.saudiendodj.com/text.asp?2013/3/1/39/116281

Dear Editor,

I want to thank Prof. Saeed Asgary who is a reference in endodontic research for having appreciated our published manuscript (Biocompatibility assessment of modified Portland cement in comparison with MTA ® : In vivo and in vitro studies; Khalil et al. 2012;2:6-13) and for sending such interesting comments especially on the presence or absence of arsenic in the cement powder.

Modified Portland cement (MPC) powder is mainly composed of Portland cement (PC). PC may contain some heavy metals and contaminants. There has been a special concern regarding the presence of arsenic in this material. Arsenic is a metalloid encountered in water, air, and soil in both inorganic and organic forms and in different stages of oxidation. According to ISO 9917-120 standard, entitled Water based cements - Part 1: Powder/liquid acid-base cements (2003), a material to be used in dental procedures should contain no more arsenic than 2 mg/kg of cement. Several studies [1],[2],[3],[4] analyzing the composition of PC and several MTA powders do not mention the presence of arsenic as a component, indicating that, if present, its concentration is minimal and within the ISO-recommended limit thus demonstrating no contraindication for the use of these materials in clinical practice.

Concerning MPC, the PC used for this material is specially manufactured by MicroMega under controlled, clean, and segregated conditions to ensure freedom from contamination.

However, Prof. Saeed Asgary has encouraged us to initiate a new study to verify if MPC complies with the ISO-recommended limit for water-based cements of 2 mg arsenic/kg material. Therefore, the purpose of this comparative study is to quantify, by atomic absorption spectrophotometry, the amount of arsenic in MPC and 2 MTAs (ProRoot and MTA-Angelus).

 
  References Top

1.Estrela C, Bammann LL, Estrela CR, Silva RS, Pécora JD. Antimicrobial and chemical study of MTA, Portland cement, calcium hydroxide paste, Sealapex and Dycal. Braz Dent J 2000;11:3-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Funteas UR, Wallace JA, Fochtman EW. A comparative analysis of mineral trioxide aggregate and Portland cement. Aust Endod J 2003;29:43-4.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.Tenório de Franca TR, da Silva RJ, Sedycias de Queiroz M, Aguiar CM. Arsenic content in Portland cement: A literature review. Indian J Dent Res 2010;21:591-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Duarte MA, De Oliveira Demarchi AC, Yamashita JC, Kuga MC, De Campos Fraga S. Arsenic release provided by MTA and Portland cement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:648-50.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2348    
    Printed105    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded269    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal