4.7 Article

Impact of Immersion Media on Physical Properties and Bioactivity of Epoxy Resin-Based and Bioceramic Endodontic Sealers

期刊

POLYMERS
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/polym14040729

关键词

bioceramic sealers; immersion media; physicochemical properties

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico [CNPq-426145/2018-6]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa e ao Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico do Maranhao [FAPEMABM 01691/19, Universal-00713/17]
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brasil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the effects of different immersion media on the physical properties and bioactivity of a bioceramic sealer. The results showed that the sealer exhibited better solubility and alkaline environment in phosphate buffered saline and simulated body fluid, and promoted hard tissue deposition.
This study assessed the effects of immersion media [distilled water (dw), phosphate buffered saline (pbs) and simulated body fluid (sbf)] in the physical properties [fluid uptake/sorption/solubility and alkalinization activity (pH)] and bioactivity of a bioceramic sealer: the BioRoot RCS (BioRoot) (Septodont). The epoxy-resin sealer AH Plus (Dentsply) was used as comparison. Sealers were immersed in dw, pbs and sbf to evaluate the fluid uptake/sorption/solubility and pH's media. Bioactivity was assessed with SEM/EDS, FTIR-ATR and XRD. BioRoot solubility was as follows: sbf > pbs = dw. BioRoot had alkaline pH, and AH Plus had neutral pH, regardless of the medium. BioRoot presented mineral precipitates and peaks indicating hydroxyapatite-precursors in pbs and sbf. AH Plus physical properties were not affected by immersion media and it had no bioactivity. pbs and sbf should be preferred to investigate bioceramic sealers over distilled water, because they were able to highlight the sealer properties. BioRoot maintained the alkaline environment and favored hard tissue deposition.

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

4.7
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