Evaluation of Setting Time, Solubility, and Compressive Strength of Four Calcium Silicate-Based Cements

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
四种硅酸钙基水泥凝结时间、溶解度和抗压强度的评价
本研究旨在比较4种硅酸钙基水泥(CSCs)的物理性能:2种粉液混合型(RetroMTA®[RTMX]和Endocem®MTA Zr [EZMX])和2种预混型(Well-Root™PT [WRPR]和Endocem®MTA预混型[ECPR]) CSCs。此外,我们评估了水泥的凝结时间、溶解度值和抗压强度。zmx的凝固时间最短(123.33±5.77 s),其次是RTMX(146.67±5.77 s)、ECPR(260.00±17.32 s)和WRPR(460.00±17.32 s)。溶解度最高的是WRPR(9.01±0.55%),其次是RTMX(2.17±0.07%)、EZMX(0.55±0.03%)和ECPR(0.17±0.03%)。ECPR的抗压强度最高(76.67±25.67 Mpa),其次是WRPR(38.39±7.25 Mpa)、RTMX(35.07±5.34 Mpa)和EZMX(4.07±0.60 Mpa)。综上所述,与粉液混合型CSCs (EZMX和RTMX)相比,预混型CSCs (WRPR和ECPR)的凝固时间更长。溶解度试验结果显示,ECPR溶解度最低,WRPR溶解度最高,两者差异有统计学意义(p < 0.0083)。抗压强度试验显示,ECPR的抗压强度最高,EZMX的抗压强度最低,两者之间的差异也有统计学意义(p < 0.0083)。ECPR是一种很有前途的材料,因为它是预先混合的,不需要混合时间,而且它也证明了更好的溶解度和抗压强度,使其成为临床使用的潜在有利选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Clinical Usefulness of the Jones Jig Appliance for Alignment of Premolars and Molars: Case Reports Managing Short Root Anomalies in Pediatric Cancer Survivors: Utilizing Resin Wire Splints and Miniscrews for Skeletal Anchorage Deep Learning in Dental Radiographic Imaging Enhancing the Antibacterial Effect of Erythrosine-Mediated Photodynamic Therapy with Ethylenediamine Tetraacetic Acid Evaluating Measurements: A Comparative Study of Digital and Plaster Models for Orthodontic Applications in Mixed Dentition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1