ABSTRACT
AIM: To compare solubility, microhardness and radiopacity of ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) with two Portland cements (PC: CEM I and CEM II). METHODOLOGY: Solubility: for standardized samples (n = 12/group) ring moulds were filled with the cements. These samples were immersed in double-distilled water for 1 min, 10 min, 1 h, 24 h, 72 h, and 28 days. Mean loss of weight was determined. Microhardness: five samples of each cement were produced. All samples were loaded with a diamond indenter point with a weight of 100 g for 30 s. Radiopacity: five samples per cement were produced. These samples were tested according to the ISO standards to compare their radiodensity to that of an aluminium step wedge (1-9 mm). Differences between the three materials with respect to their solubility, microhardness and radiopacity were analysed using ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls. RESULTS: After 28 days MTA was of low solubility (0.78%) compared with CEM I (31.38%) and CEM II (33.33%). At exposure times >1 min the two PCs were significantly more soluble than MTA (P < 0.05). The microhardness for MTA was significantly higher (39.99 HV; P < 0.001) compared with the two PC (CEM I: 16.32 HV; CEM II: 13.51 HV). MTA was significantly more radiopaque (5.34 mm Al) than CEM I (3.32 mm Al) and CEM II (2.52 mm Al) (P < 0.05), whereas CEM I was significantly more radiopaque than CEM II (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Mineral trioxide aggregate displayed superior material properties than both Portland cements.
Subject(s)
Aluminum Compounds/chemistry , Calcium Compounds/chemistry , Dental Cements/chemistry , Oxides/chemistry , Root Canal Filling Materials/chemistry , Silicates/chemistry , Drug Combinations , Hardness , SolubilityABSTRACT
AIM: To compare the weight loss of eight different root-canal sealers in water and in artificial saliva with different pH values. METHODOLOGY: For standardized samples (n = 12 per group), ring moulds were filled with epoxy resin (AH 26, AH Plus)-, silicone (RSA RoekoSeal)-, calcium hydroxide (Apexit, Sealapex)-, zinc oxide-eugenol (Aptal-Harz)-, glass-ionomer (Ketac Endo)- and polyketone (Diaket)-based sealers. These samples were immersed in double-distilled water or artificial saliva with different pH values (7.0, 5.7 and 4.5) for 30 s, 1 min, 2 min, 5 min, 10 min, 20 min, 1 h, 2 h, 10 h, 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, 14 days and 28 days. Mean loss of weight was determined and analysed statistically using a one-way anova and Student-Newman-Keuls test for all pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Most sealers were of low solubility, although Sealapex, Aptal-Harz and Ketac Endo showed a marked weight loss in all liquids. Even after 28 days of storage in water, AH 26, AH Plus, RSA RoekoSeal, and Diaket showed less than 3% weight loss. At exposure times greater than 14 days, Sealapex showed the significantly greatest weight loss of all sealers tested (P < 0.05). Aptal-Harz and Ketac Endo were significantly more soluble in saliva (pH 4.5) than in water (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of the present study, AH Plus showed the least weight loss of all sealers tested, independent of the solubility medium used. Sealapex, Aptal-Harz and Ketac Endo had a marked weight loss in all liquids.
