Cianconi L, Palopoli P, Campanella V, Mancini M
Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Department of Dental Materials, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2016 Dec;17(4):281-285.
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.
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).
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.
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.
本研究旨在确定意大利OGNA公司生产的Aureoseal Plus和美国登士柏 Tulsa Dental公司生产的ProRoot MTA的化学成分和各相微观结构,并比较它们的特性。
研究设计:通过多种分析类型比较Aureoseal Plus和ProRoot MTA的微观结构。按照UNI EN ISO 196-2标准对两种水门汀进行化学分析。采用X射线荧光光谱法(XRF)测定元素组成。使用X射线衍射仪(XRD)对晶体结构进行定量分析。使用配备背散射探测器的扫描电子显微镜(SEM)和场发射扫描电子显微镜(FESEM)评估粉末形态。通过能量色散X射线分析(EDS)进行元素分析。
半定量XRF分析表明两种水门汀中均存在重金属氧化物。两种水门汀的XRD光谱显示存在硅酸二钙、硅酸三钙、铝酸三钙、铁铝酸四钙、氧化铋和石膏。SEM分析表明,ProRoot MTA粉末比Aureoseal更细且更均匀。两种粉末均由不同形状的颗粒组成:圆形、棱柱形和长方形。EDS分析表明,与Aureoseal不同,一些ProRoot MTA颗粒含有钙、硅、铝和铁。ProRoot和Aureoseal中的长方形颗粒富含铋。
对新型波特兰水泥基根管封闭剂的强烈关注将催生具有更好操作特性和物理化学性能的材料。通过XRF、XRD、SEM和EDS分析对两种水门汀粉末进行了全面研究。迄今为止,关于Aureoseal Plus的研究较少。这种水门汀的成分与ProRoot MTA相似。尽管如此,它具有独特的元素,可能会改善其特性,从而成为MTA的良好替代品。