Bioceramic materials are increasingly used in dentistry because of their biocompatibility, sealing properties, and potential to support mineralized tissue formation.This narrative review summarizes their composition, properties, clinical applications, advantages, and limitations across vital pulp therapy, endodontic repair, periodontal and osseous regeneration, implant dentistry, restorative treatment, and tissue engineering.Calcium silicate cements, calcium phosphate ceramics, bioactive glass, zirconia, and alumina serve different clinical purposes, and their performance depends on formulation, handling, setting reactions, and treatment indication.Although laboratory and clinical findings support several biological and sealing advantages, these outcomes do not consistently establish superior long-term clinical effectiveness.Material selection should therefore be indication-specific and informed by comparative clinical evidence, mechanical and handling properties, esthetic requirements, retreatability, and cost.Well-designed trials with standardized outcomes and longer follow-up are needed to clarify the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individual bioceramic formulations.Unlike previous reviews focusing on specific materials or dental applications, this review provides an integrated assessment of bioceramics across multiple dental disciplines, highlighting their clinical applications, advantages, and limitations.It distinguishes laboratory findings from clinical outcomes, identifies evidence gaps, and emphasizes the need for long-term comparative studies to guide evidence-based material selection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cedillo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: