The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Physicomechanical Properties and Antimicrobial Activity of White Portland Micro- and Nanoparticulate Peruvian Cement, Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, and Neomineral Trioxide Aggregate

Melissa Salazar Villavicencio, Eduardo Cahuana, William Ramírez, Leyla Delgado

Keywords : Antimicrobial, Mineral trioxide aggregate, Physicomechanical properties, Portland cement

Citation Information : Villavicencio MS, Cahuana E, Ramírez W, Delgado L. Comparative Evaluation of Physicomechanical Properties and Antimicrobial Activity of White Portland Micro- and Nanoparticulate Peruvian Cement, Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, and Neomineral Trioxide Aggregate. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (10):965-970.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3421

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-03-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To compare the surface microhardness, compressive strength, and antimicrobial activity of white Portland nanoparticle and microparticle Peruvian cement, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), and neomineral trioxide aggregate (NeoMTA) at 24 hours and 28 days. Materials and methods: Twenty specimens were prepared for each group of cement microparticulated powder (PCm), nanoparticulated cement (PCn), MTA, and NeoMTA to be evaluated at two different times, 24 hours and 28 days for the surface microhardness test and compressive strength. For the antimicrobial activity tests, another 20 specimens were prepared for each group of cement where they were subdivided into two subgroups according to the different periods at 24 hours and 48 hours. For the surface microhardness and compressive strength, the specimens, and the cement groups were mixed according to the manufacturer's instructions and transferred to a cylindrical polyethylene mold of 6-mm diameter and 4-mm height. The compressive strength test was conducted using a universal testing machine. Moreover, the agar diffusion technique was to evaluate the antibacterial and antifungal activity of the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans. Finally, the data were statistically analyzed. Results: The highest microhardness values for the 24-hour subgroup were recorded for NeoMTA cement (16.99 ± 2.02), followed by MTA, PCn, and PCm, respectively. As for the 28-day subgroup, PCn cement (41.64 ± 3.20) presented the highest microhardness, followed by NeoMTA, PCm, and MTA, respectively, with statistically significant differences among them. The compressive strength of both subgroups 24 hours and 28 days exhibited the highest mean for PCn (41.3 ± 4.29, 65.74 ± 3.06), followed by PCm, NeoMTA, and the lowest value for MTA cement. Finally, for the antimicrobial activity, the highest mean for the 24-hours and 48-hours subgroup was recorded for NeoMTA cement (17.6 ± 1.26, 17.8 ± 1.44), followed by PCn, PCm, and the lowest value for MTA, with significant differences between them. Clinical significance: It is highly recommended, Portland cement (PC) as a viable substitute since it has very similar components and properties, but at a lower cost. Conclusion: Regardless of the evaluation time, PCn produced higher surface microhardness and compressive strength; however, NeoMTA showed higher antimicrobial activity.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Tanomaru–Filho M, Tanomaru JM, Barros DB, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of endodontic sealers, MTA-based cements and Portland cement. J Oral Sci 2007;49(1):41–45. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.49.41.
  2. Prati C, Gandolfi MG. Calcium silicate bioactive cements: Biological perspectives and clinical applications. Dent Mater 2015;31(4):351–370. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.004.
  3. Camilleri J. The chemical composition of mineral trioxide aggregate. J Conserv Dent 2008;11(4):141–143. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.48834.
  4. Gutmann JL, Manjarrés V. Historical and contemporary perspectives on the microbiological aspects of endodontics. Dent J (Basel) 2018;6(4):49. DOI: 10.3390/dj6040049.
  5. Song W, Li S, Tang Q, et al. In vitro biocompatibility and bioactivity of calcium silicate based bioceramics in endodontics (review). Int J Mol Med 2021;48(1):128. DOI: 10.3892/ijmm.2021.4961.
  6. Saghiri MA, Orangi J, Asatourian A, et al. Calcium silicate-based cements and functional impacts of various constituents. Dent Mater J 2017;36(1):8–18. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2015-425.
  7. Możyńska J, Metlerski M, Lipski M, et al. Tooth discoloration induced by different calcium silicate-based cements: A systematic review of in vitro studies. J Endod 2017;43(10):1593–1601. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.04.002.
  8. Janini ACP, Bombarda GF, Pelepenko LE, et al. Antimicrobial activity of calcium silicate-based dental materials: A literature review. Antibiotics (Basel) 2021;10(7):865. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10070865.
  9. Camilleri J. The physical properties of accelerated Portland cement for endodontic use. Int Endod J 2008;41(2):151–157. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01330.x.
  10. Jafari F, Jafari S. Composition and physicochemical properties of calcium silicate-based sealers: A review article. J Clin Exp Dent 2017; 9(10):e1249–e1255. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54103.
  11. Zhu J, Liang R, Sun C, et al. Effects of nanosilver and nanozinc incorporated mesoporous calcium silicate nanoparticles on the mechanical properties of dentin. PLoS One 12(8):e0182583. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182583.
  12. Neves PB, Agnelli JA, Kurachi C, et al. Addition of silver nanoparticles to composite resin: effect on physical and bactericidal properties in vitro. Braz Dent J 2014;25:141–145. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201302398.
  13. Gomes–Filho JE, Silva FO, Watanabe S, et al. Tissue reaction to silver nanoparticles dispersion as an alternative irrigating solution. J Endod 2010;36(10):1698–1702. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.07.007.
  14. Vazquez–Garcia F, Tanomaru–Filho M, Chávez–Andrade G, et al. Effect of silver nanoparticles on physicochemical and antibacterial properties of calcium silicate cements. Brazilian Dent J 2016;27(5):508–514. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201600689.
  15. Jonaidi–Jafari N, Izadi M, Javidi P. The effects of silver nanoparticles on antimicrobial activity of ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and calcium enriched mixture (CEM). J Clin Exp Dent 2016;8(1): e22–e26. DOI: 10.4317/jced.52568.
  16. Lee YL, Lee BS, Lin FH, et al. Effects of physiological environments on the hydration behavior of mineral trioxide aggregate. Biomaterials 2004;25(5):787–793. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00591-x.
  17. Nekoofar MH, Aseeley Z, Dummer PMH. The effect of various mixing techniques on the surface microhardness of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2010;43(4):312–320. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591. 2010.01683.x.
  18. Torabinejad M, Hong C, McDonald F, et al. Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material. J Endod 1995;21(7): 349–353. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80967-2.
  19. Camilleri J. Hydration mechanisms of mineral trioxide aggregate. Int Endod J 2007;40(6):462–470. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01248.x.
  20. Saghiri MA, Lotfi M, Joupari MD, et al. Effects of storage temperature on surface hardness, microstructure, and phase formation of white mineral trioxide aggregate. J Endod 2010;36(8):1414–1418. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.04.022.
  21. Tennis PD, Jennings HM. A model for two types of calcium silicate hydrate in the microstructure of Portland cement pastes. Cem Concr Res 2000;30(6):855–863. DOI: 10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00257-X.
  22. Paul MP, Amin S, Mayya A, et al. A comparative study of surface hardness between two bioceramic materials in an experimental apexification model under wet and dry conditions. Open Dent J 2021;14(1):698–703. DOI: 10.2174/1874210602014010698.
  23. Camilleri J, Sorrentino F, Damidot D. Investigation of the hydration and bioactivity of radiopacified tricalcium silicate cement, Biodentine and MTA Angelus. Dental Materials 2013;29(5):580–593. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.03.007.
  24. Farrugia C, Baca P, Camilleri J, et al. Antimicrobial activity of ProRoot MTA in contact with blood. Sci Reports 2017;7(1):1–10. DOI: 10.1038/srep41359.
  25. Shin M, Chen JW, Tsai CY, et al. Cytotoxicity and antimicrobial effects of a new fast-set MTA. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017 2071247. DOI: 10.1155/2017/2071247.
  26. McHugh CP, Zhang P, Michalek S, et al. pH required to kill Enterococcus faecalis in vitro. J Endod 2004;30(4):218–219. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200404000-00008.
  27. Zanjani VA, Tabari K, Sheikh-Al-Eslamian SM, et al. Physiochemical properties of experimental nano-hybrid MTA. J Med Life 2018;11(1): 51–56. PMID: 29696065.
  28. Saghiri MA, Asgar K, Lotfi M, et al. Nanomodification of mineral trioxide aggregate for enhanced physiochemical properties. Int Endod J 2012;45(11):979–988. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02056.x.
  29. Jacob VP, Paião LI, da Silva ACG, et al. Antimicrobial action of NeoMTA Plus on mono- and dual-species biofilms of Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans: An in vitro study. Arch Oral Biol 2020;120:104925. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2020.104925.
  30. Jardine AP, Montagner F, Quintana RM, et al. Antimicrobial effect of bioceramic cements on multispecies microcosm biofilm: A confocal laser microscopy study. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23(3):1367–1372. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2551-6.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.