Chemical and physical surface and bulk material characterization of white ProRoot MTA and two Portland cements
Chemical and physical surface and bulk material characterization of white ProRoot MTA and two Portland cements
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.dental.2005.01.019
复制
发表时间：
2005-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Schäfer, E
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dammaschke, T;Gerth, HUV;Schäfer, E
目标。分析了白色prooroot MTA在体和表面的化学和物理性质，并与常用的两种硅酸盐水泥CEM1和cem2进行了比较。用x射线光电子能谱（XPS）和能量色散x射线能谱（EDX）对主要成分进行了分析，用电感耦合等离子体发射光谱（ICP-OES）对次要成分进行了鉴定。此外，还研究了不同水泥的固化过程：用XPS分析了粉末水泥和粘结水泥表面的化学成分，并用扫描电镜（SEM）观察了其形态变化。在prooroot MTA中，石膏的用量大约是波特兰水泥的一半。prooroot MTA由毒性较小的重金属（Cu, Mn, Sr），较少的发色团（Fe3+）和较少的at -species组成，但含有约2 %的Bi。与波特兰水泥相比，prooroot MTA含有约2个at。% Bi。在这三种产物中，粘结胶结物表面的硫含量均比粉末高3倍，表明从硬化反应动力学角度来看，硫酸盐作用机制延长了固化时间。波特兰胶结物的颗粒大小变化较大，而prooroot MTA的颗粒大小均匀且较小。在化学和物理表面和体积性能方面，prooroot MTA不能简单地被更便宜的波特兰水泥所取代。这两种产品相似，但不完全相同。并表现出明显的差异。(c) 2005年牙科材料学会。Elsevier Ltd.出版。版权所有。
Objectives. The chemical and physical properties of white ProRoot MTA were analyzed in the bulk and at the surface and compared with two common Portland cements types CEM1 and CEM2.Methods. The main components were analyzed by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX), and the minor constituents were identified with inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). Moreover, the setting of the different cements was studied: the chemical composition of the surface of both powder and bound cement was investigated by XPS and the morphological changes were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).Results. In ProRoot MTA, the amount of gypsum is approximately half of that of the Portland cements. ProRoot MTA consists of less toxic heavy metals (Cu, Mn, Sr), less chromophores (Fe3+), and less At-species, but contains about 2 at % Bi. In contrast to Portland cements, ProRoot MTA contains about 2 at.% Bi. In all three products, the amount of sulfur at the surface in the bound cements was 3 times higher than in the powder, indicating that in terms of the kinetics of the hardening reaction, a sulfate action mechanism prolongs the setting time. The Portland cements are composed of particles with a wide range of size, whereas ProRoot MTA showed a uniform and smaller particle size.Significance. With regard to chemical and physical surface and bulk properties, ProRoot MTA cannot simply be substituted by the cheaper Portland cement. Both products are similar but not equal. and exhibit marked differences. (c) 2005 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.