Advancements in bio-ceramic technology has revolutionised endodontic material science by enhancing the treatment outcome for patients. This class of dental materials conciliates excellent biocompatibility with high osseoconductivity that render them ideal for endodontic care. Few recently introduced bio-ceramic materials have shown considerable clinical success over their early generations in terms of good handling characteristics. Calcium enriched mixture (CEM) cement, Endosequence sealer, and root repair materials, Biodentine and BioAggregate are the new classes of bio-ceramic materials. The aim of this literature review is to present investigations regarding properties and applications of CEM cement in endodontics. A review of the existing literature was performed by using electronic and hand searching methods for CEM cement from January 2006 to December 2013. CEM cement has a different chemical composition from that of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) but has similar clinical applications. It combines the biocompatibility of MTA with more efficient characteristics, such as significantly shorter setting time, good handling characteristics, no staining of tooth and effective seal against bacterial leakage.
Calcium* ; Dental Materials ; Endodontics* ; Family Characteristics ; Hand ; Humans ; Tooth ; Treatment Outcome ; Pemetrexed

Objective: The aim of this study was to perform a comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit (TFRK) for the removal of broken endodontic instruments. Materials and Methods: A total of 80 extracted human first mandibular molars with moderate root canal curvature were selected. Following access cavity preparation canal patency was established with a size 10/15 K-file in the mesiobuccal canals of all teeth. The teeth were divided into 2 groups of 40 teeth each: the P group (ProUltra tips) and the T group (TFRK). Each group was further subdivided into 2 smaller groups of 20 teeth each according to whether ProTaper F1 rotary instruments were fractured in either the coronal third (C constituting the PC and TC groups) or the middle third (M constituting the PM and TM groups). Instrument retrieval was performed using either ProUltra tips or the TFRK. Results: The overall success rate at removing the separated instrument was 90% in group P and 95% in group T (p > 0.05) The mean time for instrument removal was higher with the ultrasonic tips than with the TFRK (p > 0.05). Conclusion Both systems are acceptable clinical tools for instrument retrieval but the loop device in the TFRK requires slightly more dexterity than is needed for the ProUltra tips.