33 resultados para moto,gestione,progetti,sviluppo,azienda,R
Resumo:
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the ion exchange treatment on the R-curve behavior of a leucite-reinforced dental porcelain, testing the hypothesis that the ion exchange is able to improve the R-curve behavior of the porcelain studied. Porcelain disks were sintered, finely polished, and submitted to an ion exchange treatment with a KNO(3) paste. The R-curve behavior was assessed by fracturing the specimens in a biaxial flexure design after making Vickers indentations in the center of the polished surface with loads of 1.8, 3.1, 4.9, 9.8, 31.4, and 49.0 N. The results showed that the ion exchange process resulted in significant improvements in terms of fracture toughness and flexural strength as compared to the untreated material. Nevertheless, the rising R-curve behavior previously observed in the control group disappeared after the ion exchange treatment, i.e., fracture toughness did not increase with the increase in crack size for the treated group.
Resumo:
Introduction: This ex vivo study evaluated the heat release, time required, and cleaning efficacy of MTwo (VDW, Munich, Germany) and ProTaper Universal Retreatment systems (Dentsply/Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and hand instrumentation in the removal of filling material. Methods: Sixty single-rooted human teeth with a single straight canal were obturated with gutta-percha and zinc oxide and eugenol-based cement and randomly allocated to 3 groups (n = 20). After 30-day storage at 37 degrees C and 100% humidity, the root fillings were removed using ProTaper UR, MTwo R, or hand files. Heat release, time required, and cleaning efficacy data were analyzed statistically (analysis of variance and the Tukey test, alpha = 0.05). Results: None of the techniques removed the root fillings completely. Filling material removal with ProTaper UR was faster but caused more heat release. Mtwo R produced less heat release than the other techniques but was the least efficient in removing gutta-percha/sealer. Conclusions: ProTaper UR and MTwo R caused the greatest and lowest temperature increase on root surface, respectively; regardless of the type of instrument, more heat was released in the cervical third. Pro Taper UR needed less time to remove fillings than MTwo R. All techniques left filling debris in the root canals. (I Endod 2010;36:1870-1873)
Resumo:
Objectives The aims of this research were to evaluate the efficacy of a bioactive glass-ceramic (Biosilicate (R)) and a bioactive glass (Biogran (R)) placed in dental sockets in the maintenance of alveolar ridge and in the osseointegration of Ti implants. Material and methods Six dogs had their low premolars extracted and the sockets were implanted with Biosilicate (R), Biogran (R) particles, or left untreated. After the extractions, measurements of width and height on the alveolar ridge were taken. After 12 weeks a new surgery was performed to take the final ridge measurements and to insert bilaterally three Ti implants in biomaterial-implanted and control sites. Eight weeks post-Ti implant placement block biopsies were processed for histological and histomorphometric analysis. The percentages of bone-implant contact (BIC), of mineralized bone area between threads (BABT), and of mineralized bone area within the mirror area (BAMA) were determined. Results The presence of Biosilicate (R) or Biogran (R) particles preserved alveolar ridge height without affecting its width. No significant differences in terms of BIC, BAMA, and BABT values were detected among Biosilicate (R), Biogran (R), and the non-implanted group. Conclusions The results of the present study indicate that filling of sockets with either Biosilicate (R) or Biogran (R) particles preserves alveolar bone ridge height and allows osseointegration of Ti implants. To cite this article:Roriz VM, Rosa AL, Peitl O, Zanotto ED, Panzeri H, de Oliveira PT. Efficacy of a bioactive glass-ceramic (Biosilicate (R)) in the maintenance of alveolar ridges and in osseointegration of titanium implants.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 148-155.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01812.x.