Ocena in vitro właściwości materiałowych Biodentine w porównaniu z ProRoot MTA
This may explain the present results.
The SEM micrographs showed the pattern of crystallization of Biodentine, which resembles a lotus flower blossom (Fig. 1) as described earlier [43]. In contrast the precipitates found on the MTA samples are more peltiform (Fig. 2). The reason for the different crystallization forms is unknown yet. Thus, further research to analyse the exact chemical composition of the white precipitate and to evaluate the increase in weight after storage in PBS buffer is under preparation.
Vickers microhardness
The measurement of the Vickers microhardness was undertaken with 5 mm thick samples to simulate clinical application. Matt et al. recommended 5 mm thick ProRoot MTA as an apical barrier, which was significantly harder than a barrier of 2 mm [44]. In addition the minimal thickness for ProRoot MTA given in the literature as root-end filling material is 3 mm [45] and for apical plug formation 4 mm [46].
Regarding Vickers microhardness, it was found that Biodentine was significantly harder than ProRoot MTA. In the present study, the Vickers microhardness for ProRoot MTA was quite low compared with that derived from other publications where the microhardness of ProRoot MTA was found to be between about 40 HV and 60 HV [36, 47-51]. This can be related to different experimental setups.
The Vickers microhardness [...]
którzy są subskrybentami naszego portalu.
i ciesz się dostępem do bazy merytorycznej wiedzy!
