571 resultados para CIMENTOS DE IONÔMEROS DE VIDRO


Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Pós-graduação em Ciências Odontológicas - FOAR

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Pós-graduação em Ciências Odontológicas - FOAR

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Pós-graduação em Odontologia Restauradora - ICT

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Objetivo: O presente trabalho, dividido em três estudos, teve como objetivo geral identificar e quantificar a liberação de componentes e avaliar a citotoxicidade e a biocompatibilidade de cimentos de ionômero de vidro (CIVs). Método: Para o estudo 1, extratos dos CIVs Vitrebond (VB), Fuji Lining LC (FL), Vitremer (VM), Fuji II LC (FII), Ketac Fil Plus (KF) e Ketac Molar Easymix (KM) foram obtidos pela imersão de corpos-de-prova em meio de cultura celular (DMEM). Esses extratos (n=9 por grupo) foram analisados por eletrodo específico quanto à presença de flúor e por espectrometria de absorção atômica quanto à presença de alumínio e zinco. HEMA e iodobenzeno foram identificados por CG/EM (n=6). Para o estudo 2, células MDPC-23 foram colocadas em contato com os extratos dos CIVs por 24 horas. Em seguida, foram avaliadas a atividade da desidrogenase succínica (SDH) (n=8), a produção de proteína total (PT) (n=8), a atividade da fosfatase alcalina (FAL) (n=8) e a morfologia celular (n=2). Para o estudo 3, tubos de polietileno (n=24 por grupo) foram preenchidos com os CIVs e implantados no tecido subcutâneo de 42 ratos. Como grupo controle foi utilizada a guta-percha. Após 7 ou 15 dias de pós-operatório, metade dos espécimes de cada grupo e período (n=6) foi preparada para análise histológica, e os demais (n=6) para análise da expressão de genes que codificam para IL-1? e TNF-?. Resultados: Os extratos de todos os CIVs apresentaram uma concentração de flúor significativamente maior do que o meio de cultura DMEM (controle), tendo o VB liberado maior quantidade, estatisticamente significante, do que os demais CIVs. O VB foi, também, o único material que liberou quantidades relativamente altas de alumínio e de zinco. O HEMA foi identificado nos extratos de todos os CIVs modificados por resina (VB, FL, VM e FII), e o iodobenzeno... (Resumo completo, clicar acesso eletrônico abaixo)

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The application of ultrasonic waves during the initial setting of the glass ionomer cements (GIC) has demonstrated increase of the cure speed, reduction of air bubbles and improves in some mechanical properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the ultrasound on the microhardness and the superficial roughness in two GICs (FUJI IX GP (GC Corporation) and Ketac Molar EasyMix (3M ESPE)). Forty specimens were confectioned, twenty for evaluation of the superficial roughness and twenty for evaluation of the microhardness. Half of them received for thirty seconds the ultrasonic waves application. The readings of the roughness had been carried before and after the toothbrushing test. The twenty remaining specimens had been polished with abrasive sandpapers of decreasing granulations and submitted to the hardness test. The results, analyzed for the variance analysis (ANOVA) (p<0,05), had demonstrated increase of the hardness for all the groups with the application of ultrasonic waves, being bigger for the Ketac Molar EasyMix. The ultrasound application also caused significant reduction of the superficial roughness for the Ketac Molar EasyMix. After the toothbrushing test, this last property increased for all the materials. It could be concluded that the application of ultrasonic waves was effective in increasing the superficial hardness of the materials and that it improved the roughness of the Ketac Molar EasyMix before the toothbrushing test.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

To compare the abrasion wear resistance and superficial roughness of different glass ionomer cements used as restorative materials, focusing on a new nanoparticulate material. Material and Method: Three glass ionomer cements were evaluated: Ketac Molar, Ketac N100 and Vitremer (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), as well as the Filtek Z350 (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA). For each material were fabricated circular specimens (n=12), respecting the handling mode specified by the manufacturer, which were polished with sandpaper disks of decreasing grit. The wear was determined by the amount of mass (M) lost after brushing (10,000 cycles) and the roughness (Ra) using a surface roughness tester. The difference between the Minitial and Mfinal (ΔM) as well as beroughness of aesthetic restorative materials: an in vitro comparison. SADJ. 2001; 56(7): 316-20. 11. Yip HK, Peng D, Smales RJ. Effects of APF gel on the physical structure of compomers and glass ionomer cements. Oper. Dent. 2001; 26(3): 231-8. 12. Ma T, Johnson GH, Gordon GE. Effects of chemical disinfectants on the surface characteristics and color of denture resins. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77(2): 197-204. 13. International organization for standardization. Technical specification 14569-1. Dental Materials – guidance on testing of wear resistance – PART I: wear by tooth brushing. Switzerland: ISO; 1999. 14. Bollen CML, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater.1997; 13(4): 258-9. 15. Kielbassa AM, Gillmann C, Zantner H, Meyer-Lueckel H, Hellwig E, Schulte-Mönting J. Profilometric and microradiographic studies on the effects of toothpaste and acidic gel abrasivity on sound and demineralized bovine dental enamel. Caries Res. 2005; 39(5): 380-6. 16. Tanoue N, Matsumara H, Atsuta M. Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84(1): 93-7. 17. Heath JR, Wilson HJ. Abrasion of restorative materials by toothpaste. J Oral Rehabil. 1976; 3(2): 121-38. 18. Frazier KB, Rueggeberg FA, Mettenburg DJ. Comparasion of wearresistance of class V restorative materials. J Esthet Dent. 1998; 10(6): 309-14. 19. Momoi Y, Hirosakil K, Kohmol A, McCabe JF. In vitro toothebrushdentifrrice abrasion of resin-modified glass ionomers. Dent Mater. 1997; 13(2): 82-8. 20. Turssi CP, Magalhães CS, Serra MC, Rodrigues Jr.AL. Surface roughness assessment of resin-based materials during brushing preceded by pHcycling simulations. Oper Dent. 2001; 26(6): 576-84. 21. Wang L, Cefaly DF, Dos Santos JL, Dos Santos JR, Lauris JR, Mondelli RF, et al. In vitro interactions between lactic acid solution and art glassionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009; 17(4): 274-9. 22. Carvalho FG, Fucio SB, Paula AB, Correr GM, Sinhoreti MA, PuppinRontani RM. Child toothbrush abrasion effect on ionomeric materials. J Dent Child (Chic). 2008; 75(2): 112-6. 23. Coutinho E, Cardoso MV, De Munck J, Neves AA, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, et al. Bonding effectiveness and interfacial characterization of a nano-filled resin-modified glass-ionomer. Dent Mater. 2009; 25(11): 1347-57. tween Rainitial and Rafinal (ΔRa) were also used for statistical analysis (α=0.05). Results: Except for the composite, significant loss of mass was observed for all glass ionomer cements and the ΔM was comparable for all of them. Significant increase in roughness was observed only for Vitremer and Ketac N100. At the end of the brushing cycle, just Vitremer presented surface roughness greater than the composite resin. Conclusion: All glass ionomer cements showed significant weight loss after 10,000 cycles of brushing. However, only Vitremer showed an increase of roughness greater than the Z350 resin, while the nanoparticulate cement Ketac N100 showed a smooth surface comparable to the composite.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

To evaluate the surface roughness and Vickers hardness of glass ionomer cements Ketac Molar® and Ketac Molar Easy Mix® (ESPE Dental AG) after brushing. Methods – After roughness and hardness tests of 14 specimens of each material, they were submitted to 30,000 brushing cycles and new analysis of roughness and hardness. Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the materials in relation to the initial roughness. Results – However, after brushing there was higher surface roughness for Ketac Molar Easy Mix®. For both materials, there was increase of hardness after brushing and the highest values were presented by Ketac Molar Easy Mix®. Conclusion – It can be concluded that, when choosing a glass ionomer cement for restoration it should be preferred to Ketac Molar, because it showed hardness similar to Ketac Molar Easy Mix, but it was less rough.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Pós-graduação em Ciências Odontológicas - FOAR

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Pós-graduação em Ciência Odontólogica - FOA