Get Your Personalized Supplement StackSupplement Stack Quiz

Ums Bioactive Blend

Q: Is UMS Bioactive Blend safe?

Yes, bioactive dental materials, which 'UMS Bioactive Blend' likely represents, have a strong safety record in clinical use with low incidence of adverse effects.

Q: How soon are results seen?

Clinical success with bioactive dental materials is typically evaluated at 6 to 12 months post-treatment, with sustained benefits observed over longer periods.

Q: Can it replace traditional materials?

Evidence supports bioactive blends as superior or equivalent to traditional materials like Calcium Hydroxide for vital pulp treatments and direct pulp capping.

Q: Are there systemic effects?

No significant systemic absorption or effects have been reported, as these materials act locally at the site of application within the oral cavity.

Also known as: UMS Bioactive Blend, Bioactive Blends, Bioactive Cements, Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA), Biodentine, Calcium Silicate Cements, Calcium Phosphate Cements, Bioactive Dental Material Blends

Overview

UMS Bioactive Blend is a proprietary term likely referring to a type of bioactive dental material blend, not a single, standardized chemical compound. These blends typically consist of calcium silicates, calcium phosphates, or other mineral-based compounds. They are primarily used in dentistry for vital pulp treatment, direct pulp capping, and alveolar bone regeneration. Their key characteristics include promoting mineralization, exhibiting antimicrobial properties, and supporting tissue regeneration. Bioactive dental materials are designed to enhance healing and reduce failure rates in various dental procedures, often compared to established materials like Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine. Research on bioactive dental materials in general is extensive, with high-quality evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses supporting their efficacy and safety.

Benefits

Bioactive dental material blends offer significant benefits in various dental applications. They have shown improved success rates in vital pulp treatments and direct pulp capping compared to traditional materials like Calcium Hydroxide, with systematic reviews reporting significantly lower odds ratios of treatment failure (p < 0.05). These materials demonstrate comparable or superior clinical and radiographic outcomes to MTA and Ferric Sulfate in pulpotomy procedures, particularly in primary teeth. Beyond pulp therapy, they enhance alveolar bone regeneration, especially when used as nanomaterials or bioactive coatings on dental implants. The benefits are primarily observed in dental patients undergoing pulp capping or implant procedures, leading to reduced failure rates and improved healing in both permanent and primary teeth. Sustained success rates are observed over follow-up periods ranging from 6 to 24 months.

How it works

Bioactive dental material blends primarily function by releasing calcium ions and hydroxyl groups upon contact with tissue fluids. This release creates an alkaline environment, which is both antimicrobial and conducive to cellular differentiation. The calcium ions stimulate mineralization and the formation of a dentin bridge, a crucial step in pulp healing. These materials interact locally with dental pulp cells and alveolar bone cells, promoting regeneration and healing. Their known molecular targets include calcium-sensing receptors on pulp cells and osteoblasts, leading to the upregulation of genes involved in mineralization. Due to their localized action, systemic absorption is minimal, ensuring their effects are concentrated at the site of application.

Side effects

Bioactive dental materials are generally considered safe with a low incidence of adverse effects when used appropriately. Common side effects, occurring in more than 5% of cases, are typically mild and transient, such as inflammation or sensitivity at the application site. Uncommon side effects, affecting 1-5% of patients, may include rare allergic reactions or, if improperly applied, pulp necrosis. Significant systemic toxicity has not been reported, with rare side effects occurring in less than 1% of cases. There are no documented drug interactions. Contraindications include cases of irreversible pulpitis or necrotic pulp, where the material's regenerative properties would be ineffective. Safety profiles are consistent across pediatric and adult populations, with no significant differences observed.

Dosage

The dosage for bioactive dental material blends is not standardized in terms of a minimum effective dose, as it is highly dependent on the specific dental procedure and material formulation. Optimal dosage ranges involve applying a thin layer sufficient to cover the exposed pulp or implant surface, with the exact volume and thickness being procedure-specific. Due to their localized action, no systemic toxicity limits have been established for a maximum safe dose. These materials are applied during dental procedures, and their benefits are observed over several months post-application. They are available in various forms, such as cements, pastes, or coatings, tailored for specific uses. Localized action means bioavailability is not a concern, but moisture at the application site is often a required cofactor for proper setting and bioactivity.

FAQs

Is UMS Bioactive Blend safe?

Yes, bioactive dental materials, which 'UMS Bioactive Blend' likely represents, have a strong safety record in clinical use with low incidence of adverse effects.

How soon are results seen?

Clinical success with bioactive dental materials is typically evaluated at 6 to 12 months post-treatment, with sustained benefits observed over longer periods.

Can it replace traditional materials?

Evidence supports bioactive blends as superior or equivalent to traditional materials like Calcium Hydroxide for vital pulp treatments and direct pulp capping.

Are there systemic effects?

No significant systemic absorption or effects have been reported, as these materials act locally at the site of application within the oral cavity.

Research Sources

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-69367-7 – This systematic review and network meta-analysis, involving 1932 patients, found that MTA, CEM, Biodentine, TotalFill, and TheraCalLC showed lower failure rates than Ca(OH)2 in vital pulp treatments. It concluded no significant difference among the top bioactive materials, despite some heterogeneity in study designs.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36494111/ – This systematic review and meta-analysis, involving various RCTs with over 30 patients per group, reported that MTA and Ferric Sulfate had equal success in pulpotomies. It highlighted the effectiveness of bioactive materials in primary molars, despite being limited to primary teeth.
https://rde.ac/journal/view.php?doi=10.5395%2Frde.2024.49.e34 – This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that bioactive materials significantly improve success rates in direct pulp capping on permanent teeth. While it did not specify sample size, it provided a comprehensive review of the topic, though with limited direct comparison of specific blends.