Acid and Microhardness of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate–like Materials

Bolhari, Behnam; Nekoofar, Mohammad Hossein; Sharifian, Mohammadreza; Ghabrai, Sholeh; Meraji, Naghmeh; Dummer, P. M. H.

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2013.10.014

Cited by 30 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The BioAggregate group showed the lowest hardness values and differed significantly from other groups. The findings are in agreement with the results of the previous studies [29,30] . Bolhari et al [29] reported significantly higher hardness values for ProRoot MTA compared to BioAggregate and calcium-enriched material.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The findings are in agreement with the results of the previous studies [29,30] . Bolhari et al [29] reported significantly higher hardness values for ProRoot MTA compared to BioAggregate and calcium-enriched material. The low surface microhardness of BioAggregate could be related to the increased initial leaching of calcium ions resulting in high porosity of the set material and weak physical properties [17] .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Push-Out Bond Strength and Surface Microhardness of Calcium Silicate-Based Biomaterials: An in vitro Study

Majeed

AlShwaimi²

2016

Med Princ Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

of 1 mm/min. Samples were analyzed under a light microscope to determine the nature of bond failure. Ten samples (2 mm thick) were prepared for all the materials, and Vickers microhardness was determined using a digital hardness tester. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests at a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: Biodentine (42.02; 39.35 MPa) and ProRoot MTA (21.86; 34.13 MPa) showed significantly higher bond strengths than BioAggregate (6.63; 10.09 MPa) in coronal and apical root dentin, respectively ( p < 0.05). Biodentine also differed significantly from ProRoot MTA in coronal dentin. Bond failure was predominantly adhesive in Biodentine and ProRoot MTA, while BioAggregate showed predominantly mixed failure. ProRoot MTA (158.52 HV) showed significantly higher microhardness and BioAggregate (68.79 HV) showed the lowest hardness. Conclusion: Biodentine and ProRoot MTA showed higher bond strength and microhardness compared to BioAggregate. AbstractObjective: This was an in vitro evaluation of push-out bond strength and surface microhardness of calcium silicatebased biomaterials in coronal and apical root dentin. Materials and Methods: Ninety sections (2 mm thick) of coronal and apical root dentin were obtained from roots of 60 extracted teeth; the canals were enlarged to a standardized cavity diameter of 1.3 mm. Sections were randomly divided into 6 groups ( n = 15 per group), and cavities were filled with Biodentine TM , BioAggregate, or ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), according to the manufacturers' instructions. Push-out bond strength values were measured using a universal testing machine under a compressive load at a speed Significance of the StudyIn this study, the push-out bond strength and microhardness of 3 materials, ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, and BioAggregate, were compared. Biodentine and ProRoot MTA had higher bond strength and microhardness values than BioAggregate, and hence could be the materials of choice for root repair procedures and retrograde fillings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Push-Out Bond Strength and Surface Microhardness of Calcium Silicate-Based Biomaterials: An in vitro Study

Majeed

AlShwaimi²

2016

Med Princ Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For biomechanical sensing, osteoblasts seize the elasticity and topology of MTA by anchoring to the cement via focal adhesion sites (Giancotti & Ruoslahti 1999, Fletcher & Mullins 2010, which facilitate the reciprocal transformation of biomechanical to biochemical signals (Tomakidi et al 2014). Generally, the physical properties of solidified MTA largely rely on handling parameters such as powder/liquid ratio (Basturk et al 2015), mixing method (Nekoofar et al 2010, Basturk et al 2014, Duque et al 2018, condensation pressure (Nekoofar et al 2007), environmental humidity (Caronna et al 2014, Shokouhinejad et al 2014) and pH (Bolhari et al 2014), all being constant in the experimental set-up. From a chemical viewpoint, mixing the MTA powder with fluoride-enriched water is assumed to result in chemical integration of fluoride into the solidifying crystal structures (Song et al 2006, Parirokh & Torabinejad 2010a, which probably sustains physical characteristics similar to nonfluoride ProRoot MTA (Appelbaum et al 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the bioactivity of fluoride‐enriched mineral trioxide aggregate on osteoblasts

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Microhardness testing is based on the evaluation of the resistance of materials to deformation. A variety of factors such as the surrounding pH , material thickness , mixing techniques , condensing pressure , powder particle size , etching , blood and serum contamination , and temperature can affect bioceramic cement microhardness.…”

Section: Tests For Mechanical (Physical) Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When MTA is in contact with tissue fluid, the setting time is extended and, in certain cases, the material may not set at all (77,78). Bolhari et al (48) compared the surface microhardness of BioAggregate, ProRoot MTA, and CEM Cement when exposed to an acidic environment or PBS. The results showed that the surface microhardness of BioAggregate, ProRoot MTA, and CEM Cement was greater when exposed to PBS compared to butyric acid (pH: 5.4) and distilled water.…”

Section: Effect Of the Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do different tests tell about the mechanical and biological properties of bioceramic materials?

Shen¹,

Peng²,

Yang³

et al. 2015

Endodontic Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A wide selection of commercial bioceramic (MTA‐type) materials is now available for dentin replacement, pulp capping, pulpotomy, creation of apical barriers in teeth with open apices, repair of root perforation and resorptive defects, as well as orthograde or retrograde root canal fillings. A variety of experiments with different models and methods employed by researchers in the endodontic community have been developed for studying the properties of bioceramic materials in order to understand and predict their bioactive behavior and how they fulfill the mechanical, chemical, and microbiological goals set to these materials. Objective criteria for testing bioceramic materials should be developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) or the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) to accurately describe the biological, chemical, and mechanical characteristics of the bioceramic cements and sealers that are available for use in various endodontic applications. This article is an overview of those methods and devices that have been and will be used in the literature for testing bioceramic materials.

show abstract

Acid and Microhardness of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate and Mineral Trioxide Aggregate–like Materials

Cited by 30 publications

References 33 publications

Push-Out Bond Strength and Surface Microhardness of Calcium Silicate-Based Biomaterials: An in vitro Study

Push-Out Bond Strength and Surface Microhardness of Calcium Silicate-Based Biomaterials: An in vitro Study

Evaluation of the bioactivity of fluoride‐enriched mineral trioxide aggregate on osteoblasts

What do different tests tell about the mechanical and biological properties of bioceramic materials?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About