SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.19 issue3Assessment of improved glass ionomer microleakage (Ketac Molar Easymix ® ) with or without use of a conditionerClinical implications of Enterococcus faecalis microbial contamination in root canals of devitalized teeth: Literature review author indexsubject indexsearch form
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand




Related links

  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO


Revista odontológica mexicana

Print version ISSN 1870-199X


RODRIGUEZ ROCHA, Alejandra Citlalli; HERNANDEZ PADRON, Genoveva; GARCIA GARDUNO, Margarita V.  and  GARCIA ARANDA, Raúl Luis. Physicochemical analysis of MTA Angelus ® and Biodentine ® conducted with X ray difraction, dispersive energy spectrometry, X ray fluorescence, scanning electron microscope and infra red spectroscopy. Rev. Odont. Mex [online]. 2015, vol.19, n.3, pp.174-180. ISSN 1870-199X.

The aim of the present study was to characterize components of commercial cements used in dentistry MTA Angelus® White (Angelus Lodrina, Parana Brazil) and Biodentine TM (Septodont, Saint-Maurdes Fosses, France). Techniques used for said characterization were Scanning Electron Microscope, X-Ray Diffraction, X Ray Fluorescence, Electron Dispersion Spectrometry, and Infrared Spectroscopy. Both cements were mixed according to manufactures instructions. A study of surface texture was conducted with Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), and X Ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis, and X Ray fluorescence analysis (XRF), an analysis of Dispersive Energy Spectrometry (DES), as well as an Infra Red Spectroscopy (IRS) in order to determine functional groups.


In XRD analysis, a difference was found: Biodentine exhibited Na2O and ZrO2. These elements were absent in MTA. MTA presented Cr2O3 and BiO2 which in turn were absent in Biodentine. EDS analysis revealed that differences were found in the radio-opacifying agent, and that Biodentine presented CaCl2 differing in this from MTA. Statistical analysis conducted revealed statistically signifi cant percentages in contents, even though components were found to be practically the same. SEM analysis revealed marked differences: MTA presented irregular and porous surface whereas Biodentine exhibited irregular and filament form.


There is a great similarity in the chemical components of MTA Angelus and Biodentine, with the exception of chemical components providing radio-opacity, the size and form of the grain, and, in Biodentine presence of calcium chloride.

Keywords : MTA Angelus®; Biodentine TM; DES; SEM; XRD; XRF; IRS.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in English | Spanish