Background. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is a commonly used endodontic biomaterial. The physicochemical properties of MTA have a crucial role in designating clinical outcome, and different factors can affect these properties. Various methods have been used for mixing MTA, including manual, mechanical, and ultrasonic. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of different mixing methods on the physicochemical properties of MTA. Materials and Methods. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched up to May 2022. In order to cover gray literature, the ProQuest and Google Scholar databases were also searched to detect theses and conference proceedings. For quality assessment of the included studies, we used a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Experimental studies which had assessed at least one property of MTA and compared at least two different mixing methods of MTA were included in this study. All animal studies, reviews, case reports, and case series were excluded. Results. Fourteen studies were included. The results showed that the ultrasonic mixing method significantly improved some MTA characteristics, including microhardness, flowability, solubility, setting time, and porosity. However, the mechanical mixing method improved other properties including flowability, solubility, push-out bond strength, and hydration. The manual mixing method showed inferior results compared to other mixing methods in terms of microhardness, flowability, solubility, setting time, push-out bond strength, porosity, and hydration. Different mixing methods had a similar effect on compressive strength, sealing ability, pH and calcium ion release, volume change, film thickness, and flexural strength of MTA. Conclusion. Mechanical and ultrasonic mixing methods are superior to the manual mixing method in terms of improving physicochemical properties of MTA. No report of selection bias and varieties in methodologies were limitations of evidence.
