Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Comparison of the physical and mechanical properties of MTA and portland cement|
|Authors:||Islam, I. |
Kheng Chng, H.
Jin Yap, A.U.
Root-end filling material
|Citation:||Islam, I., Kheng Chng, H., Jin Yap, A.U. (2006). Comparison of the physical and mechanical properties of MTA and portland cement. Journal of Endodontics 32 (3) : 193-197. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.043|
|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. Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of Endodontists.|
|Source Title:||Journal of Endodontics|
|Appears in Collections:||Staff Publications|
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
checked on Mar 21, 2019
WEB OF SCIENCETM
checked on Mar 12, 2019
checked on Mar 17, 2019
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.