4.2 Review

Physicochemical, mechanical and biological properties of nano-calcium silicate-based cements: a systematic review

Journal

ODONTOLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10266-023-00786-0

Keywords

Calcium silicate cements; Mineral trioxide aggregate; Nano-calcium silicate cement; Nano-mineral trioxide aggregate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review examined the effects of nano-sized cement particles on the properties of calcium silicate-based cements. A literature search was conducted and 17 eligible studies were included. The results showed that nano-calcium silicate-based cements have better physical, mechanical, and biological properties compared to commonly used cements. However, there were deficiencies in characterizing and verifying the nano-particle size, and the presence of additives may have influenced the properties.
This systematic review evaluated the effects of nano-sized cement particles on the properties of calcium silicate-based cements (CSCs). Using defined keywords, a literature search was conducted to identify studies that investigated properties of nano-calcium silicate-based cements (NCSCs). A total of 17 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Results indicated that NCSC formulations have favourable physical (setting time, pH and solubility), mechanical (push out bond strength, compressive strength and indentation hardness) and biological (bone regeneration and foreign body reaction) properties compared with commonly used CSCs. However, the characterization and verification for the nano-particle size of NCSCs were deficient in some studies. Furthermore, the nanosizing was not limited to the cement particles and a number of additives were present. In conclusion, the evidence available for the properties of CSC particles in the nano-range is deficient-such properties could be a result of additives which may have enhanced the properties of the material.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available