Rugosidade superficial do esmalte e de resinas compostas: avaliação de instrumentos de acabamento pelo microscópio de força atômica

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Desenvolvimento e avaliação da efetividade de duas pastas polidoras em padrão nanométrico empregadas a materiais restauradores estéticos: análise comparativa por perfilometria digital e microscopia de força atômica

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Análise comparativa da rugosidade superficial de resinas compostas de alta densidade

The success achieved by the use of composite resins in anterior teeth precipitately leads their use in posterior teeth. However, the indiscriminate application of these materials in cavities with several diverse sizes rapidly pointed out their lack of resistance to oclusal and proximal wear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the surface roughness of composite resin in relation to finishing and polishing technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight experimental groups (n = 15) were divided according to finishing and polishing technique: G1 – Z250TM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G2 – Z250TM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing; G3 – P60TM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G4 – P60TM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing; G5 – Prodigy CondensableTM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G6 – Prodigy CondensableTM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing; G7 – SurefillTM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G8 – SurefillTM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing. Three packable and one microhybrid (control group) composite resin was used. The surface roughness was measured using a profilometer at three points in each sample. The results were evaluated by ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Prodigy CondensableTM composite resin showed the lowest surface roughness, while SurefillTM showed the highest surface roughness. Comparing the resins used, only between P60TM and SurefillTM there were no statistically significant differences (p > 0,05). CONCLUSION: Surface roughness was lower in all types of resin composites surfaces in contact with Mylar matrix strip than in areas submitted to finishing and polishing procedure.

Escape depth of secondary electrons from electron-irradiated polymers

Measurements on polymers (Teflon FEP and Mylar) have shown that the secondary electron emission from uncharged surfaces exceeds that from surfaces containing a positive surface charge. The reduced emission of charged surfaces is due to recombination between electrons undergoing emission and trapped holes within the charged layer. During the experiments the surface of the material was kept at a negative potential to assure that all secondary electrons reaching the surface from within the material are actually emitted. An analysis of the results yielded the maximum escape depth of the secondary electrons, and showed that the ratio of the maximum escape depth of the secondaries from Mylar to the maximum escape depth from Teflon is almost the same as the ratio of the corresponding second crossover energies of this polymers.