| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3131482 | Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia | 2011 | 8 Pages |
RiassuntoObiettiviValutare le caratteristiche microscopiche dei cementi endodontici MTA disponibili in commercio e di un cemento di Portland.Materiali e metodiAnalisi su quattro varietà di MTA: Ogna Aureoseal®, Proroot white MTA®, Angelus white e gray MTA® e un cemento di Portland. I campioni, previo esame in diffrazione X, sono stati consolidati; i provini a cemento solidificato sono stati inglobati in una resina epossidica e lucidati in superficie: questo ha permesso un’osservazione SEM-EDS per evidenziarne la struttura e la natura chimica e mineralogica.RisultatiLe analisi mostrano significative differenze tra i vari tipi di MTA presi in esame e tra questi e il cemento di Portland usato come riferimento.I cementi utilizzati a scopo odontoiatrico hanno granuli di minori dimensioni, una maggiore idratazione e un minor contenuto di ferro e zolfo. Tra i costituenti mineralogici caratteristici del MTA si riscontrano agenti radio-opacizzanti (Bi2O3 e CaWO4). Una sostanziale differenza tra i cementi MTA è la quantità variabile nel contenuto di magnesio e alluminio che, dopo il consolidamento, presentano una granulometria inferiore nei campioni Ogna Aureoseal® e Proroot white MTA®; la presenza di apatite e tungstato di calcio (CaWO4) è invece caratteristica del cemento MTA Ogna Aureoseal®.ConclusioniLe differenze tra i campioni MTA e tra questi e il cemento di Portland sono significative sia a livello di tessitura microscopica sia di composizione chimica.
ObjectivesTo determine the mineralogical, chemical, and microtextural differences between commercially available MTA products, clarifying common differences with Portland and between each other.Materials and methodsThe study was done on four commercially available MTA cements, that is Ogna Aureoseal®, Proroot white MTA®, Angelus white and gray MTA® and on a commercial Portland cement. After preliminary X-ray diffraction characterization of the powder, the samples were consolidated following the same procedure used in clinical practice. The consolidated material was embedded in epoxy and polished, and subsequently investigated, by means of SEM-EDS analysis of back-scattered electron images on all samples and of quantitative compositional mapping on MTA.ResultsThe MTA and Portland cements differ for the grain size, the hydration rate, and homogeneity of the set products, and for lower Fe and S content in MTA. Previously reported presence of opacizing agents (Bi2O3 and CaWO4) was confirmed in all samples, whereas low Al content was not observed in all MTA. Although the MTA products are all mainly composed by di-calcium and tri-calcium silicates, the post-setting texture and the chemical and mineralogical constitution differ. Finer texture was observed in Ogna Aureoseal® and Proroot white MTA®; in Ogna Aureoseal® the presence of apatite and Ca-tungstate was reported; Mg and Al content changed in samples, following the clinker composition.ConclusionsSignificant differences exist between Portland cement and MTA, but also among different MTA formulations. MTA products can be classified as a form of Portland cement, specifically modified for dentistry purposes.
