| Literature DB >> 30622963 |
Arthur Dias Galarça1, Wellington Luiz de Oliveira Da Rosa2, Tiago Machado Da Silva1, Giana da Silveira Lima2, Neftalí Lenin Villarreal Carreño3, Thiago Machado Pereira4, Orlando Aguirre Guedes4, Alvaro Henrique Borges4, Adriana Fernandes da Silva2, Evandro Piva1,2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) is a tricalcium-based silicate, dicalcium silicate matrix. Despite its good biologic properties, some clinicians still claim to have difficulties in handling MTA after its preparation due to its sandy consistency. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the physicochemical properties and cytotoxicity of MTA Repair HP (Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil) compared with MTA Angelus (Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil). MATERIALS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30622963 PMCID: PMC6288567 DOI: 10.1155/2018/8063262
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Composition of the tested materials and their manufacturer.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| MTA Angelus (Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil) | Powder: silicon oxide (SiO2), potassium oxide (K2O), aluminum oxide (Al2O3), sodium oxide (Na2O), iron oxide (Fe2O3), calcium oxide (CaO), bismuth oxide (Bi2O3), magnesium oxide (MgO), insoluble residues of crystalline silica, (K2SO4), and (Na2SO4) |
|
| |
| MTA Repair HP (Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil) | Powder: tricalcium silicate (3CaO.SiO2), dicalcium silicate (2CaO.SiO2), tricalcium aluminate (3CaO.Al2O3), calcium oxide (CaO) and calcium tungstate (CaWO4) |
Physicochemical properties of MTA and MTA Repair HP.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| 15.48 | 11.20 |
|
| 8.3 ± 0.1a | 13.0 ± 1.0b |
|
| 16.08 ± 1.52a | 18.15 ± 1.10b |
|
| 330 ± 80a | 194 ± 89b |
|
| 3.01 ± 0.09a | 3.04 ± 0.16a |
| | 19.40 ± 2.67a | 16.32 ± 2.92a |
| | -3.81 ± 1.25a | -2.77 ± 1.18a |
WSR: water absorption; WSL: water solubility
Data followed by different letters are statistically different in the same row (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Compressive strength in MPa after 1 and 24 h, 7 and 28 days of storage. In different periods of time, there were statistically significant differences for the same material. ∗ indicates statistically significant differences between the two materials in the same period of time (p<0.05).
Figure 2Cell viability and standard deviation (%) of materials evaluated after 24 and 48 h. There were no statistically significant differences among groups and periods of time (p>0.05).