NPs and NPs loaded with zinc or calcium were soaked in 20 ml of SBFS [pH 7.45] in sterile flasks for 7 days [23 ,24 ]. Reagents per 1000 ml of SBFS: 8.035 g of NaCl, 0.355 g of NaHCO3, 0.225 g of KCl, 0.231 g of K2HPO4·3H2O, 0.311 g of MgCl2·6H2O, 39 g of 1M HCl,0.292 g of CaCl2, 0.072 g of Na2SO4, 118 g of Tris, 0 to 5 ml of 1M HCl for final pH adjustment [23 ,24 ]. After drying, in a vacuum heater during 24 h, polymeric spheres were analyzed by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) (GEMINI, Carl Zeiss SMT, Germany) at 2.5 to 3 Kv, 3.6 mm working distance, microscope was attached to an energy dispersive analysis system (EDX) (Inca 300 and 350, Oxford Instruments, Oxford, UK). Amorphous mineral deposition was probed by X-ray diffraction analysis (Bruker D8 Advance; XRD Bruker Corporation, Wien, Austria). Experimental conditions were CuKα radiation (λ = 1,5406 Å) in θ−θ scan, in a range 2 Theta from 5° to 90°, as described in detail previously [21 (link)]. All tests were performed in triplicate.
Inca 300 and 350
Manufactured by Oxford Instruments
Sourced in United Kingdom
The Inca 300 and 350 are energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectrometer systems designed for materials analysis. They provide elemental composition information by detecting and analyzing the X-rays emitted from a sample. These systems are suitable for a variety of applications such as materials science, geology, and semiconductor analysis.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
Lab products found in correlation
3 protocols using inca 300 and 350
1
Biomineralization of Polymeric Scaffolds
2
Nano-DMA Analysis and SEM Imaging
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
After nano-DMA analysis, specimens were cut in two halves. One half was fixed in a solution of 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 mol/L sodium cacodylate buffer for 24 h. Samples were subjected to critical point drying (Leica EM CPD 300, Wien, Austria), sputter-coated with carbon by means of a Nanotech Polaron-SEMPREP2 sputter-coating equipment (Polaron Equipment Ltd., Watford, UK). Samples were then observed with a field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM Gemini, Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). Employed accelerating voltage was 3 kV, and 3.0–3.6 mm was used for working distance. Images were taken with different magnifications at randomized areas, in each specimen. Elemental analysis was done by means of an energy dispersive analysis system (EDX) (Inca 300 and 350, Oxford Instruments, Oxford, UK).
3
Microtensile Bond Strength of Dentine Adhesives
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
A further six resin-bonded dentine specimens were prepared for each group and sectioned to obtain multiple bonded-sticks of 0.9 mm 2 . Their microtensile bond strengths were tested after 24 h or 6 m of AS storage using a customized microtensile jig on a linear actuator (SMAC Europe Ltd., Horsham, UK). Mean bond strength values were analyzed by ANOVA, which was performed including the bond strength (MPa) as the dependent variable. Bonding groups (DW, PAS or PAS-TMP) and period of AS storage (24 h or 6 months) were considered as independent variables. Analysis of interactions was also conducted.
Student-Newman-Keuls and Student t tests were used for comparisons. Statistical analyses were set at a significance level of α = 0.05 and α = 0.01 respectively. Modes of failure were classified as percentage of adhesive (A) or mixed (M) or cohesive (C) failures using a stereo microscope (magnification ×60). Three representative fractured specimens for each group were mounted on aluminium stubs using carbon tape, carbon-sputter-coated and finally imaged using a field emission scanning electron microscopy SEM (Gemini, Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) at 3 kV and a working distance of 6 to 7 mm. The microscope was attached to an energy dispersive analysis system (EDX)
(Inca 300 and 350, Oxford Instruments, Oxford, UK).
Student-Newman-Keuls and Student t tests were used for comparisons. Statistical analyses were set at a significance level of α = 0.05 and α = 0.01 respectively. Modes of failure were classified as percentage of adhesive (A) or mixed (M) or cohesive (C) failures using a stereo microscope (magnification ×60). Three representative fractured specimens for each group were mounted on aluminium stubs using carbon tape, carbon-sputter-coated and finally imaged using a field emission scanning electron microscopy SEM (Gemini, Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) at 3 kV and a working distance of 6 to 7 mm. The microscope was attached to an energy dispersive analysis system (EDX)
(Inca 300 and 350, Oxford Instruments, Oxford, UK).
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!