Fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement restorations
Contribuinte(s) |
UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO |
---|---|
Data(s) |
19/10/2012
19/10/2012
2008
|
Resumo |
Purpose: To investigate in vitro the effect of retentive grooves, GIC type and insertion method on the fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restorations. Methods: Premolars were divided into 12 groups (n=10) according to three variables: retentive grooves [presence (PR) or absence AR)], GICs type [Ketac-Molar (KM), Fuji VIII (F8) and RelyX Luting (RX)], and insertion method [syringe injector (SI) or spoon excavator (SE)]. The specimens were subjected to fracture resistance test. Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons were performed using a Tukey test (P < 0.05). Results: Mean fracture resistance values (Kgf) +/- standard deviations (SD) were: KM (PR+SI) 65.66 +/- 2.5; KM (PR+SE) = 62.58 +/- 2.1; KM (AR+SI) = 57.11 +/- 1.9; KM (AR+SE) = 51.94 +/- 2.3; F8 (PR+SI) = 63.05 +/- 2.1; F8 (PR+SE) = 60.12 +/- 2.3; F8 (AR+SI) = 55.11 +/- 1.9; F8(AR+SE)=49.20 +/- 1.6; RX (PR+SI)=50.99 +/- 2.4; RX (PR+SE)=48.81 +/- 2.5; RX (AR+SI)=45.53 +/- 2.6; RX (AR+SE)=41.88 +/- 3.0. Statistically significant differences were observed among all the groups tested (P=0.001). There was significant difference when pooled means for GIC type were compared with retentive grooves (P=0.01) and when pooled means for retentive grooves were compared with insertion method (P=0.01). |
Identificador |
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, v.21, n.3, p.163-167, 2008 0894-8275 |
Idioma(s) |
eng |
Publicador |
MOSHER & LINDER, INC |
Relação |
American Journal of Dentistry |
Direitos |
closedAccess Copyright MOSHER & LINDER, INC |
Palavras-Chave | #AMALGAM RESTORATIONS #TEETH #ART #COMPOSITE #RESIN #DENTITION #SURVIVAL #Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine |
Tipo |
article original article publishedVersion |