Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In vitro assessment shows biodentine outperforms NeoMTA 2 in setting time and hardness for endodontic use.
Introduction: Calcium silicate-based cements are widely used in endodontic procedures due to their bioactivity and biocompatibility. NeoMTA 2 is a newer formulation designed to improve radiopacity, setting performance, and manipulation compared with earlier materials. This study aimed to compare the setting time and surface microhardness of NeoMTA 2 and Biodentine cements. Materials and Methods: Seven specimens of cement, two groups (NeoMTA 2 and Biodentine), were prepared in type II gypsum molds for setting time evaluation and tested with Gillmore needles at 37°C under controlled humidity. For microhardness, 48 disk-shaped specimens were prepared (24 per material), with half stored for 4 days and the other half for 7 days ( n = 12 per group). Three indentations were averaged for each specimen. Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc tests (α =0.05). Results: Biodentine showed significantly shorter initial and final setting times than NeoMTA 2 ( P < 0.001). Biodentine also demonstrated higher microhardness values at both 4 and 7 days ( P < 0.001). Both materials exhibited significant increases in hardness over time, while the interaction between cement and storage period was not significant. Conclusion: NeoMTA 2 and Biodentine exhibited clinically acceptable setting and microhardness behavior. Biodentine set faster and reached higher hardness, which may be advantageous when early mechanical performance is required. NeoMTA 2 still showed improved behavior compared with earlier MTA formulations, supporting its suitability for clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Collaguazo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: