Karýþtýrma ve yerleþtirme teknikleri Mineral Trioksit Agregatýnýn pH deðerini etkiler mi?

GÝRÝÞ ve AMAÇ: ProRoot MTA ve MTA Angelus'un mekanik ve elle karýþtýrma teknikleriyle karýþtýrýlýp, indirekt ultrasonik aktivasyon ile yerleþtirilmesinin materyalin pH deðerleri üzerindeki etkisini in vitro olarak incelemektir.
YÖNTEM ve GEREÇLER: Beyaz ProRoot MTA ve beyaz MTA-Angelus kullanýlmýþtýr. Bir gramlýk toza 0,34 g distile su eklenmiþ ve sekiz grup hazýrlanmýþtýr. Gruplarýn yarýsý, kapsüllere yerleþtirilerek 4500 rpm hýzda 30 sn boyunca karýþtýrýlmýþ, diðer yarýsý ise elle karýþtýrýlmýþtýr. Hazýrlanan bu karýþýmlarýn yarýsýna indirekt ultrasonik aktivasyon uygulanmýþtýr. Numunelerin pH deðerleri karýþým hazýrlandýktan hemen sonra ölçülmüþ ve deðerler one-way ANOVA ile 0,05 anlamlýlýk düzeyinde deðerlendirilmiþtir.
BULGULAR: Test edilen materyaller bazýnda, karýþtýrma ve yerleþtirme tekniklerinin arasýnda herhangi bir anlamlý fark bulunamamýþtýr. En yüksek pH deðeri elle karýþtýrýlýp ultrasonik aktivasyon uygulanan ProRoot grubunda (11,64), en düþük pH deðeri ise elle karýþtýrýlýp ultrasonik aktivasyon uygulanmayan MTA Angelus grubunda kaydedilmiþtir (10,42).
TARTIÞMA ve SONUÇ: Mekanik karýþtýrma ve ultrasonik aktivasyon, materyalin pH deðeri üzerinde herhangi bir olumsuz etki göstermemiþtir. Karýþtýrma ve yerleþtirme teknikleri materyalin pH deðerleri üzerinde herhangi bir etkiye sebep olmamýþtýr. Kapsüller içerisindeki simanlarýn mekanik olarak karýþtýrýlmasýnýn daha tutarlý kývamda karýþýmlar hazýrladýðý göz önünde bulundurulursa, bu tekniði ultrasonik aktivasyonla birlikte uygulamak hem klinik hem de laboratuvar koþullarý altýnda standardizasyonun saðlanmasý açýsýndan bir alternatif olarak düþünülmelidir. Anahtar

Does the mixing and placement regime affect the pH of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate?

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to measure in a laboratory setting the pH of tooth coloured ProRoot MTA and MTA Angelus following various mixing and placement techniques, including mechanical mixing, manual mixing and indirect ultrasonic activation.
METHODS: Tooth coloured ProRoot MTA and White MTA Angelus were used. One gram of each powder was mixed with a 0.34 g of distilled water that were allocated to eight experimental groups, each containing three specimens. Four groups were prepared by mechanical mixing of capsules for 30 s at 4500 rpm the other four were mixed manually. Half of the specimens in each group were placed in moulds using indirect ultrasonic activation. pH values were recorded directly from within the freshly mixed material and were analyzed using one-way ANOVA at a 0.05 level of significance.
RESULTS: No significant difference in pH was found between the mixing and placement techniques or the materials tested. The highest pH value recorded was in the ProRoot group that was mixed manually and placed ultrasonically (11.64). The Angelus group, which was mixed manually without an ultrasonic agitation, had the lowest pH values (10.42).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Mechanical mixing and ultrasonication conferred no significant disadvantage in terms of the initial pH of the material. Since mechanical agitation of encapsulated cements provides more consistent mixes, it might be possible to use this technique combined with ultrasonic agitation as an alternative to manual mixing, both in clinical and in laboratory conditions, in order to achieve standardization of the material so as to enhance its properties.