4.5 Article

Effect of Different Radiopacifying Agents on the Physicochemical Properties of White Portland Cement and White Mineral Trioxide Aggregate

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 394-397

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.11.005

关键词

MTA; physico-chemical properties; Portland cement; radiopacifying agents

资金

  1. CNPq (National Research Council)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the pH, calcium ion release, setting time, and solubility of white mineral trioxide aggregate (WMTA) and white Portland cement (WPC) combined with the following radiopacifying agents: bismuth oxide (BO), calcium tungstate (CT), and zirconium oxide (ZO). Methods: Fifty acrylic teeth with root-end filling material were immersed in ultrapure water for measurement of pH and calcium release (atomic absorption spectrophotometry) at 3, 24, 72, and 168 hours. For evaluation of setting time, each material was analyzed according to the American Society for Testing and Materials guidelines 266/08. The solubility test was performed according to American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association specification no. 57/2000. Solubility, setting time, and pH values were compared by using analysis of variance and Tukey test, and the values of calcium release were compared by the Kruskal-Wallis and Miller tests. The significance level was set at 5%. Results: The pH and calcium release were higher at 3 and 24 hours. WPC was the material with the higher values for both properties. WMTA had the greatest solubility among all materials (P < .05). All radiopacifiers increased the setting time of WPC, and WMTA had the shortest setting time among all materials (P < .05). Conclusions: All materials released calcium ions. Except for WPC/CT at 168 hours, all materials promoted an alkaline pH. On the basis of the obtained results, ZO and CT can be considered as potential radiopacifying agents to be used in combination with Portland cement. (J Endod 2012;38:394-397)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据