Crystalline phases involved in the hydration of calcium silicate‐based cements: Semi‐quantitative Rietveld X‐ray diffraction analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chemical comparisons of powder and hydrated forms of calcium silicate cements (CSCs) and calculation of alterations in tricalcium silicate (Ca3SiO5) calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) are essential for understanding their hydration processes. This study aimed to evaluate and compare these changes in ProRoot MTA, Biodentine and CEM cement. Powder and hydrated forms of tooth coloured ProRoot MTA, Biodentine and CEM cement were subjected to X‐ray diffraction (XRD) analysis with Rietveld refinement to semi‐quantitatively identify and quantify the main phases involved in their hydration process. Data were reported descriptively. Reduction in Ca3SiO5 and formation of Ca(OH)2 were seen after the hydration of ProRoot MTA and Biodentine; however, in the case of CEM cement, no reduction of Ca3SiO5 and no formation of Ca(OH)2 were detected. The highest percentages of amorphous phases were seen in Biodentine samples. Ettringite was detected in the hydrated forms of ProRoot MTA and CEM cement but not in Biodentine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".