L Cianconi1, P Palopoli1, V Campanella1, M Mancini2. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Dental Materials, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the chemical composition and the phases' microstructure of Aureoseal Plus (OGNA, Italy) and ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, USA) and to compare their characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study Design: Comparing Aureoseal Plus and ProRoot MTA microstructure by means of several analyses type. The chemical analysis of the two cements was assessed following the UNI EN ISO 196-2 norm. X-Ray fluorescence (XRF) was used to determine the element composition. The crystalline structure was analysed quantitatively using x-ray diffraction (XRD). Powders morphology was evaluated using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with backscattering detectors, and a field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM). Elemental analysis was performed by energy dispersive x-ray analysis (EDS). RESULTS: The semi-quantitative XRF analysis showed the presence of heavy metal oxides in both cements. The XRD spectra of the two cements reported the presence of dicalcium silicate, tricalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, tetracalcium aluminoferrite, bismuth oxide and gypsum. SEM analysis showed that ProRoot MTA powder is less coarse and more homogeneous than Aureoseal. Both powders are formed by particles of different shapes: round, prismatic and oblong. The EDS analysis showed that some ProRoot MTA particles, differently from Aureoseal, contain Ca, Si, Al and Fe. Oblong particles in ProRoot and Aureoseal are rich of bismuth. CONCLUSIONS: The strong interest in developing new Portland cement-based endodontic sealers will create materials with increased handling characteristics and physicochemical properties. A thorough investigation on two cement powders was carried out by using XRF, XRD, SEM and EDS analysis. To date there was a lack of studies on Aureoseal Plus. This cement is similar in composition to ProRoot MTA. Despite that it has distinctive elements that could improve its characteristics, resulting in a good alternative to MTA.
AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the chemical composition and the phases' microstructure of Aureoseal Plus (OGNA, Italy) and ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, USA) and to compare their characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Study Design: Comparing Aureoseal Plus and ProRoot MTA microstructure by means of several analyses type. The chemical analysis of the two cements was assessed following the UNI EN ISO 196-2 norm. X-Ray fluorescence (XRF) was used to determine the element composition. The crystalline structure was analysed quantitatively using x-ray diffraction (XRD). Powders morphology was evaluated using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with backscattering detectors, and a field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM). Elemental analysis was performed by energy dispersive x-ray analysis (EDS). RESULTS: The semi-quantitative XRF analysis showed the presence of heavy metal oxides in both cements. The XRD spectra of the two cements reported the presence of dicalcium silicate, tricalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, tetracalcium aluminoferrite, bismuth oxide and gypsum. SEM analysis showed that ProRoot MTA powder is less coarse and more homogeneous than Aureoseal. Both powders are formed by particles of different shapes: round, prismatic and oblong. The EDS analysis showed that some ProRoot MTA particles, differently from Aureoseal, contain Ca, Si, Al and Fe. Oblong particles in ProRoot and Aureoseal are rich of bismuth. CONCLUSIONS: The strong interest in developing new Portland cement-based endodontic sealers will create materials with increased handling characteristics and physicochemical properties. A thorough investigation on two cement powders was carried out by using XRF, XRD, SEM and EDS analysis. To date there was a lack of studies on Aureoseal Plus. This cement is similar in composition to ProRoot MTA. Despite that it has distinctive elements that could improve its characteristics, resulting in a good alternative to MTA.
Authors: Paolo Usai; Vincenzo Campanella; Giovanni Sotgiu; Giovanni Spano; Roberto Pinna; Stefano Eramo; Laura Saderi; Franklin Garcia-Godoy; Giacomo Derchi; Giorgio Mastandrea; Egle Milia Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 5.076
Authors: Amjad Abu Hasna; Lucas de Paula Ramos; Tiago Moreira Bastos Campos; Sergio Lucio Pereira de Castro Lopes; Maisour Ala Rachi; Luciane Dias de Oliveira; Cláudio Antonio Talge Carvalho Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 4.996