Ocena in vitro właściwości materiałowych Biodentine w porównaniu z ProRoot MTA
Statistical analysis
According to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov-test, all data were distributed normally. Thus, differences between the two cements regarding their solubility, Vickers hardness radiopacity, and setting time were analysed using the Student t-test at a level of significance of p < 0.05.
Results
Solubility in distilled water
There was no change in the weight of empty moulds after immersion in water after 28 days. Both materials fulfilled the requirements of ISO 6876:2001 [16] to be less soluble than 3% after 24 h. In the long run the weight loss after 28 days’ immersion in water of Biodentine was 4.610 (± 1.402) % and of ProRoot MTA 1.144 (± 0.328) % (Table 3). At all exposure times, Biodentine was significantly more soluble than ProRoot MTA (p < 0.0001).
Given are the mean percentages with SD of weight loss for each material and for each immersion period. The differences were significantly different (p < 0.0001; t-test).
Solubility in PBS buffer
Both cements showed a different solubility in PBS buffer than in distilled water. On the surface of all specimens immersed to PBS [...]
którzy są subskrybentami naszego portalu.
i ciesz się dostępem do bazy merytorycznej wiedzy!
