8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comparison of the physical and mechanical properties of MTA and portland cement.

      Journal of endodontics

      Aluminum Compounds, Biocompatible Materials, Calcium Compounds, Compressive Strength, Contrast Media, Dental Cements, Dental Stress Analysis, Device Approval, Drug Combinations, Humans, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Materials Testing, Oxides, Retrograde Obturation, Root Canal Filling Materials, Silicates, Solubility, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study evaluated and compared the pH, radiopacity, setting time, solubility, dimensional change, and compressive strength of ProRoot MTA (PMTA), ProRoot MTA (tooth colored formula) (WMTA), white Portland cement (WP), and ordinary Portland cement (OP). The results showed that PMTA and Portland cement have very similar physical properties. However, the radiopacity of Portland cement is much lower than that of PMTA. The compressive strength of PMTA was greater than Portland cement at 28 days. The major constituent of PMTA is Portland cement. Given the low cost of Portland cement and similar properties when compared to PMTA, it is reasonable to consider Portland cement as a possible substitute for PMTA in endodontic applications. However, industrially manufactured Portland cement is not approved currently for use in the United States and therefore no clinical recommendation can be made for its use in the human body. Further in vitro and in vivo tests, especially with regards its biocompatibility, should be conducted to ascertain if it meets the FDA requirements for use as a medical device.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          16500224
          10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.043

          Comments

          Comment on this article