medigraphic.com
ISSN 1870-199X (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

2015, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Odont Mex 2015; 19 (3)

Physicochemical analysis of MTA Angelus® and Biodentine® conducted with X ray difraction, dispersive energy spectrometry, X ray fluorescence, scanning electron microscope and infra red spectroscopy

Rodríguez RAC, Hernández PG, García GMV, García ARL

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 174-180
PDF size: 501.32 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study was to characterize components of commercial cements used in dentistry MTA Angelus® White (Angelus Lodrina, Parana Brazil) and BiodentineTM (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des Fosses, France). Techniques used for said characterization were Scanning Electron Microscope, X-Ray Diffraction, X Ray Fluorescence, Electron Dispersion Spectrometry, and Infrared Spectroscopy. Both cements were mixed according to manufacturer’s instructions. A study of surface texture was conducted with Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), and X Ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis, and X Ray fluorescence analysis (XRF), an analysis of Dispersive Energy Spectrometry (DES), as well as an Infra Red Spectroscopy (IRS) in order to determine functional groups. Results: In XRD analysis, a difference was found: Biodentine exhibited Na2O and ZrO2. These elements were absent in MTA. MTA presented Cr2O3 and BiO2 which in turn were absent in Biodentine. EDS analysis revealed that differences were found in the radio-opacifying agent, and that Biodentine presented CaCl2 differing in this from MTA. Statistical analysis conducted revealed statistically significant percentages in contents, even though components were found to be practically the same. SEM analysis revealed marked differences: MTA presented irregular and porous surface whereas Biodentine exhibited irregular and filament form. Conclusion: There is a great similarity in the chemical components of MTA Angelus and Biodentine, with the exception of chemical components providing radio-opacity, the size and form of the grain, and, in Biodentine presence of calcium chloride.


REFERENCES

  1. Bonson S, Jeansonne BG, Lallier TE. Root-end filling materials alter fibroblast differentiation. J Dent Res. 2004; 83: 408-413.

  2. Parirokh M, Torabinejad M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive literature review-parts I: chemical, physical, and antibacterial properties. J Endod. 2010; 36: 1-27.

  3. Torabinejad M, Watson TF, Pitt Ford TR. The sealing ability of a mineral trioxide aggregate as a retrograde root filling material. J Endodon. 1993; 19: 591-595.

  4. Enkel B, Dupas C, Armengol V et al. Bioactive materials in endodontics. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2008; 5: 475-494.

  5. Moretton TR, Brown CE Jr, Legan JJ, Kafrawy AH. Tissue reactions after subcutaneous and intraosseous implantation of mineral trioxide aggregate and ethoxybenzoic acid cement. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000; 52: 528-533.

  6. Goldberg M. Biocompatibility or citotoxic effects of dental composites. Coxmoor Publishing Company 2009. pp. 53-71.

  7. Ma J, Shen Y, Stojicic S, Haapasalo M. Biocompatibility of two novel repair materials. J Endod. 2011; 37 (6): 793-798.

  8. Gandolfi MG, Van Landuyt K, Taddei P, Modena E, Van Meerbeer B, Prati C. Enviromental scanning electron microscopy connected with energy dispersive X-ray analysis and Raman techniques to study ProRoot mineral tiroxide aggregate and calcium silicate cements in wet conditions and in real time. J Endod. 2010; 36 (5): 851-857.

  9. LeGeros RZ. Calcium phosphates in oral biology and medicine. Basel: Karger, 1991. pp. 154-71.

  10. Koubi G, Feanquin J, Bottero M, Weisrock G, Faure M. Restaurations esthétiques postérieures. Línformation Dentaire. 2011; 22: 22-26.

  11. Camilleri J, Montesin FE, Curtis RV, Ford TR. Characterization of Portland cement for use as a dental restorative material. Dent Mater. 2006; 22: 569-575.

  12. Garrault S, Behr T, Nonat A. Formation of the C-S-H during early hydration of tricalcium silicate grains with different sizes. J Phys Chem B. 2006; 110: 270-275.

  13. Taylor HFW. Cement chemistry. 2nd edition, Thomas Telford Publishing, London 1997, pp. 113-126.

  14. Asgary S, Parirokh M et al. Chemical differences between white and gray mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod. 2005; 31 (2): 101-103.

  15. Zatta P, Kiss T, Suwalsky M et al. Aluminum (III) as a promoter of cellular oxidation. Coord Chem Rev. 2002; 228: 271-284.

  16. Song JS, Mante FK, Romanow WJ, Kim S. Chemical analysis of powder and set forms of Portland cement, gray ProRoot MTA, white ProRoot MTA, and gray MTA-Angelus. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 102: 809-815.

  17. Camilleri J. Hydration mechanisms of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J. 2007; 40: 462-470.

  18. Torabinejad M, White DJ. Tooth filling material and use. Washington, DC: United States Patent & Trademark Office; Patent Number 5,769,638, May 16, 1995.

  19. Asgary S, Pariokh M, Stoew S, Brink F. A qualitative X-ray analysis of white and grey mineral trioxide aggregate using compositional imaging. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2006; 17 (2): 187-191.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com