Compressive strength of calcium silicate-based cement

Vanja Opačić Galić, Z. Stamenic, Violeta Petrovic, V. Jokanović, S. Živković
{"title":"Compressive strength of calcium silicate-based cement","authors":"Vanja Opačić Galić, Z. Stamenic, Violeta Petrovic, V. Jokanović, S. Živković","doi":"10.2478/sdj-2018-0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary Introduction The aim of this study was to compare compressive strength (Cs) of new nanostructural calcium silicate based cement (nCS) with commercial calcium silicate cement and conventional GIC. Methods Four nanostructural materials were tested: nanostructural calcium silicate based cement (nCS) (Jokanović et al.), MTA Plus (Cerkamed, Poland), Fuji IX (GC Corporation, Japan) and Ketac Universal Aplicap (3M ESPE, USA). Five samples of each material were mixed in accordance with manifecturer’s guidelines and positioned in metal moulds (ϕ4mm and 6mm). Compressive strength (Cs) expressed in MPa was determined after 24 hours, 7 days and 28 days respectively. Measurements were performed on universal testing equipment (Tinius Olsen, USA) at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min. For processing the results one-way ANOVA and post-hoc test were used. Results The highest values of compressive strength after 24h was found in conventional GIC Fuji IX (mean 38.56±13.31) and Ketac Universal (mean 40.77±7.96). Calcium silicate cements after 24h showed low values of compressive strength (MTA Plus 5.91±0.28 MPa, nCS 1.35±0.36 MPa). After 7 days, FUJI IX 47.42±9.33 MPa and Ketac Universal 35.25±10.60 MPa showed higher value of compressive strength than MTA Plus (15.09±2.77 MPa) and nCS (11.06±0.88 MPa). After 28 days the Cs value for conventional GIC Fuji IX was 48.03±7.82 MPa and Ketac Universal 36.65±11.13 MPa while for calcium silicate cements it was 16.47±1.89 MPa and nCS 14.39±1.63 MPa. There was statistically significant difference (p<0.05) in Cs between conventional GIC and CS cements after 24h, 7 and 28 days. Conclusions Calcium silicate cements initially showed lower values of compressive strength than conventional GIC that increased over time.","PeriodicalId":52984,"journal":{"name":"Stomatoloski glasnik Srbije","volume":"7 1","pages":"13 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stomatoloski glasnik Srbije","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/sdj-2018-0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Summary Introduction The aim of this study was to compare compressive strength (Cs) of new nanostructural calcium silicate based cement (nCS) with commercial calcium silicate cement and conventional GIC. Methods Four nanostructural materials were tested: nanostructural calcium silicate based cement (nCS) (Jokanović et al.), MTA Plus (Cerkamed, Poland), Fuji IX (GC Corporation, Japan) and Ketac Universal Aplicap (3M ESPE, USA). Five samples of each material were mixed in accordance with manifecturer’s guidelines and positioned in metal moulds (ϕ4mm and 6mm). Compressive strength (Cs) expressed in MPa was determined after 24 hours, 7 days and 28 days respectively. Measurements were performed on universal testing equipment (Tinius Olsen, USA) at a crosshead speed of 1mm/min. For processing the results one-way ANOVA and post-hoc test were used. Results The highest values of compressive strength after 24h was found in conventional GIC Fuji IX (mean 38.56±13.31) and Ketac Universal (mean 40.77±7.96). Calcium silicate cements after 24h showed low values of compressive strength (MTA Plus 5.91±0.28 MPa, nCS 1.35±0.36 MPa). After 7 days, FUJI IX 47.42±9.33 MPa and Ketac Universal 35.25±10.60 MPa showed higher value of compressive strength than MTA Plus (15.09±2.77 MPa) and nCS (11.06±0.88 MPa). After 28 days the Cs value for conventional GIC Fuji IX was 48.03±7.82 MPa and Ketac Universal 36.65±11.13 MPa while for calcium silicate cements it was 16.47±1.89 MPa and nCS 14.39±1.63 MPa. There was statistically significant difference (p<0.05) in Cs between conventional GIC and CS cements after 24h, 7 and 28 days. Conclusions Calcium silicate cements initially showed lower values of compressive strength than conventional GIC that increased over time.
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
硅酸盐钙基水泥的抗压强度
摘要:本研究的目的是比较新型纳米结构硅酸钙基水泥(nCS)与商用硅酸钙水泥和常规GIC的抗压强度(Cs)。方法采用纳米结构材料:纳米硅酸钙基水泥(nCS) (jokanovic等)、MTA Plus(波兰Cerkamed公司)、Fuji IX(日本GC公司)和Ketac Universal applications(美国3M ESPE公司)。每种材料的五个样品按照分配器的指导方针混合,并定位在金属模具(ϕ4mm和6mm)中。分别在24小时、7天和28天后测定抗压强度(Cs),单位为MPa。测量在通用测试设备(Tinius Olsen, USA)上进行,十字头速度为1mm/min。处理结果采用单因素方差分析和事后检验。结果常规GIC富士IX抗压强度最高(平均38.56±13.31),Ketac Universal抗压强度最高(平均40.77±7.96)。硅酸钙胶结剂24h后抗压强度较低(MTA + 5.91±0.28 MPa, nCS 1.35±0.36 MPa)。7 d后,FUJI IX(47.42±9.33 MPa)和Ketac Universal(35.25±10.60 MPa)的抗压强度值高于MTA Plus(15.09±2.77 MPa)和nCS(11.06±0.88 MPa)。28 d后,常规GIC Fuji IX的Cs值为48.03±7.82 MPa, Ketac Universal的Cs值为36.65±11.13 MPa;硅酸钙水泥的Cs值为16.47±1.89 MPa, nCS的Cs值为14.39±1.63 MPa。常规GIC与Cs水泥在24h、7、28 d时的Cs差异有统计学意义(p<0.05)。结论硅酸钙水泥最初表现出比常规GIC更低的抗压强度值,随着时间的推移而增加。
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
10
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
An influence of finishing procedures and protective coating on the ultrastructure of conventional and hybrid glass ionomer cement restorations Examination of the presence of periodontitis and gingivitis in rats with induced diabetes mellitus Condylographic evaluation of propulsive and Bennett angles in patients with temporomandibular disorders Cyclic fatigue testing of ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next rotary instruments of different diameters Oral health behavior and oral hygiene habits of elderly population in Podgorica, Montenegro
×
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