Article
I refer to the article entitled ‘Calcium Silicate Materials in Endodontics’, published in the October issue of Dental Update, which I was interested to read. It contains a high level of detail regarding an exciting group of dental materials and demonstrates a close understanding of the subject. However, while the table on page 716 correctly indicates that these materials have been developed over time in various generations which indicate progress from one to the next, it concludes with the inclusion of filled resin-based material.
Whilst accepting an element of commercial bias, having invested heavily in the research and development which brought Biodentine to market, we at Septodont would strongly disagree with the inclusion of TheraCal LC which, as detailed on page 719, is resin-based and even contains bisphenol A (BPA). This seems so far from the entire philosophy of Biodentine and other calcium silicate-based cement material technologies that it is potentially confusing, even misleading, to your readership. We believe that this significant difference needs to be explained in order that any confusion is removed.
Light-cured resin-based materials, while convenient, cannot offer the significant clinical advantages of products such as Biodentine in terms of CaOH2 release or biocompatibility and should arguably not be confused with the MTA group of materials. A recent paper by Josette Camilleri, which demonstrated this difference (Dent Mater (2014) 30: 709–715) found that ‘Theracal did not exhibit any formation of calcium hydroxide on hydration’ and ‘The leaching of calcium ions was much lower in Theracal than in Biodentine’ concluding that ‘The presence of a resin matrix modifies the setting mechanism and calcium ion leaching of Theracal’.
I would very much appreciate the authors' view in respect of these comments and look forward to further discussion on this fascinating subject.