Y. Jang, Yujin Kim, Junghwan Lee, Jongsoo Kim, Joonhaeng Lee, Miran Han, Jongbin Kim, Jisun Shin
{"title":"Evaluation of Setting Time, Solubility, and Compressive Strength of Four Calcium Silicate-Based Cements","authors":"Y. Jang, Yujin Kim, Junghwan Lee, Jongsoo Kim, Joonhaeng Lee, Miran Han, Jongbin Kim, Jisun Shin","doi":"10.5933/jkapd.2023.50.2.217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to compare the physical properties of 4 kinds of calcium silicatebased cements (CSCs): 2 kinds of powder-liquid mix type (RetroMTA® [RTMX] and Endocem® MTA Zr [EZMX]) and 2 kinds of premixed type (Well-Root™PT [WRPR] and Endocem® MTA premixed [ECPR]) CSCs, respectively. Further, we assessed the setting times, solubility values, and compressive strengths of the cements. The shortest setting time was observed for EZMX (123.33 ± 5.77 seconds), followed by RTMX (146.67 ± 5.77 seconds), ECPR (260.00 ± 17.32 seconds), and WRPR (460.00 ± 17.32 seconds), respectively. The highest solubility was observed for WRPR (9.01 ± 0.55%), followed by RTMX (2.17 ± 0.07%), EZMX (0.55 ± 0.03%), and ECPR (0.17 ± 0.03%). Furthermore, the highest compressive strength was observed for ECPR (76.67 ± 25.67 Mpa), followed by WRPR (38.39 ± 7.25 Mpa), RTMX (35.07 ± 5.34 Mpa), and EZMX (4.07 ± 0.60 Mpa). In conclusion, the premixed type CSCs (WRPR and ECPR) exhibited longer setting times compared to the powder-liquid mix type CSCs (EZMX and RTMX). The solubility test showed that ECPR had the lowest solubility while WRPR had the highest solubility, with a statistically significant difference between them (p < 0.0083). Additionally, the compressive strength test showed that ECPR had the highest compressive strength, while EZMX had the lowest compressive strength, also with a statistically significant difference between them (p < 0.0083). ECPR is a promising material as it is premixed, eliminating the need for mixing time, and it has also demonstrated improved solubility and compressive strength, making it a potentially favorable option for clinical use.","PeriodicalId":22818,"journal":{"name":"THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ACADEMY OF PEDTATRIC DENTISTRY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THE JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN ACADEMY OF PEDTATRIC DENTISTRY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5933/jkapd.2023.50.2.217","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the physical properties of 4 kinds of calcium silicatebased cements (CSCs): 2 kinds of powder-liquid mix type (RetroMTA® [RTMX] and Endocem® MTA Zr [EZMX]) and 2 kinds of premixed type (Well-Root™PT [WRPR] and Endocem® MTA premixed [ECPR]) CSCs, respectively. Further, we assessed the setting times, solubility values, and compressive strengths of the cements. The shortest setting time was observed for EZMX (123.33 ± 5.77 seconds), followed by RTMX (146.67 ± 5.77 seconds), ECPR (260.00 ± 17.32 seconds), and WRPR (460.00 ± 17.32 seconds), respectively. The highest solubility was observed for WRPR (9.01 ± 0.55%), followed by RTMX (2.17 ± 0.07%), EZMX (0.55 ± 0.03%), and ECPR (0.17 ± 0.03%). Furthermore, the highest compressive strength was observed for ECPR (76.67 ± 25.67 Mpa), followed by WRPR (38.39 ± 7.25 Mpa), RTMX (35.07 ± 5.34 Mpa), and EZMX (4.07 ± 0.60 Mpa). In conclusion, the premixed type CSCs (WRPR and ECPR) exhibited longer setting times compared to the powder-liquid mix type CSCs (EZMX and RTMX). The solubility test showed that ECPR had the lowest solubility while WRPR had the highest solubility, with a statistically significant difference between them (p < 0.0083). Additionally, the compressive strength test showed that ECPR had the highest compressive strength, while EZMX had the lowest compressive strength, also with a statistically significant difference between them (p < 0.0083). ECPR is a promising material as it is premixed, eliminating the need for mixing time, and it has also demonstrated improved solubility and compressive strength, making it a potentially favorable option for clinical use.