Effect of different mixing methodson (Flow-Compressive strength, Solubility,PH), White MTA(Mineral Trioxide Aggregate) White Portland Cement, CEM(Calcium Enriched Mixture)

Abstract

MTA , CEM , PC are being used conventionally for Restoration, filling channels, direct pulp capping, repair furcation perforations and in apexifiction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate effect of different mixing methods (Manual, Amalgamator, Ultrasonic) on physical properties (Flow, Compressive Strength, Solubility, pH) of White Portland Cement, White MTA and CEM. Materials and Methods: The pH values of all solutions were measured using Metrohm 744 pH meter (Metrohm Ltd, Herisa, Switrzerland) , the Compressive Strength of the samples was measured according to ISO , Solubility of the samples were measured using universal testing machine in ADA30 specification and Flow of test materials was measured according to ISO6876/2002 instructions. Results: In manual and ultrasonic mixing methods Flow Values of CEM were Higher than MTA and MTA Values were Higher than PC. In amalgamator mixing method , Flow values of MTA were higher than CEM and CEM higher than PC.(P-value MTA: 0 , P-value CEM: 0 , P-value PC: 0.92). In amalgamator and ultrasonic mixing methods the 21hours compressive strength values of MTA were lower than CEM and CEM were lower than PC. In manual mixing method the values of 21 hours compressive strength of MTA were lower than PC and PC were lowe than CEM. (P-value MTA: 0.94 , P-value CEM: 0.04 , P-value PC: 0.98) In amalgamator and ultrasonic mixing methods the values of 21 days compressive strength of PC were higher than MTA and MTA were higher than CEM. How ever in the manual mixing methods values of 21 days compressive strength for PC were higher than CEM and CEM were higher than MTA. (P-value MTA: 0.77 , P-value CEM: 0.03 , P-value PC: 0.71). In all mixing methods values of 1day, 1week and 21days solubility of PC were higher than MTA and MTA were higher than CEM. (P-value MTA: 0.04 , P-value CEM: 0, P-value PC: 0.84) In all mixing methods that we used pH values of MTA were higher than PC and PC were higher than CEM. (P-value MTA: 0.26 , P-value CEM: 0.63, P-value PC: 0.43) The three different mixing methods had no effects on values of pH in all of cements and flow values of CEM in manual mixing methods were higher than others and flow values of MTA in amalgamator mixing methods were higher than others and in PC were same. 21 hours and 21 days Compressive strength values of PC and MTA with different mixing methods were similar. In manual mixing method compressive strength of CEM was higher than others, solubility of PC in different mixing methods were same and 1day and 1week solubility values of MTA and CEM in manual mixing methods were lower than other mixing methods. Conclusion: MTA is ideal for getting optimum result when counting pH and Compressive strength specifications. CEM is the best material for getting optimum result when counting Flow and Solubility specifications and the Manual mixing method is the best method to getting optimum result.