754 resultados para Polimento dentário


Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Relevância:

70.00% 70.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Objective: To evaluate in vitro the surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of nanoparticle composites, after being subjected to different finishing and polishing systems. Materials and Methods: 66 specimens were prepared, and 30 with Filtek Z350 XT (3M ESPE, USA) and 30 with the resin IPS Empress Direct (Ivoclar Vivadent, USA), divided into 6 groups (n = 10 ). Six specimens were prepared for analysis in scanning electron microscopy (SEM) .Each kind of resin was subjected to finishing and polishing systems: Sof-Lex Pop-On discs (3M ESPE, USA) and AstropolTM system (Ivoclar Vivadent , USA), featuring the experimental group. The control group did not undergo any kind of finishing and polishing technique. The average roughness (Ra) in both groups was measured using a roughness in the setting of 0.25 mm (cut off) and surface images obtained with photomicrographs taken with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) magnified 500 times. Bacterial adherence was evaluated by determining the absorbance (OD) of the suspension of adhered cells by spectrophotometer at 570 nm. The results were submitted for analyzed with 2-way ANOVA at α=.05 and Tukey multiple comparison tests. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in terms of roughness and bacterial adhesion. Filtek Z350 XT for resin were no differences between the tested finishing and polishing systems, where the system of lowest surface roughness was the Sof-Lex Pop-On. To the resin IPS Empress Direct, the finishing and polishing system Astropol, had lower results of surface roughness. As for bacterial adhesion, the lowest optical density value for Filtek Z350 XT was for the group that used the finishing and polishing system Sof-Lex Pop-On and the resin IPS Empress Direct the group that used the Astropol system. In addition, there was a positive correlation between surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on polished surfaces (r = 0.612) Conclusions: surface roughness and bacterial adhesion are closely related. The finishing and polishing Sof-Lex Pop-On system is more suitable for nanoparticulate Filtek Z350 XT and the finishing and polishing system Astropol for resin nanohíbrida IPS Empress Direct.

Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The aim of this study was to compare two methods of surface roughness analysis, perfilometry and spectrophotometry, applied to the surface of ionomeric materials (Chelon Fil, Vitremer and Dyract), submitted to different surface finishing treatments. For the perfilometric analysis, sixty specimens of each material were made and randomly separated into three experimental groups. The average surface roughness (Ra, mm) was measured on each specimen by a surface perfilometer (Mitutoyo Surftest 211). The spectrophotometric analysis consisted in quantifying the dye impregnated in the samples. The dyes used were 0.5% fuchsin and 0.5% erythrosin. Data were submitted to variance analysis (ANOVA) and t-Student test at a 0.05 significance level. There was no linear correlation between average roughness and superficial deposition of dye. Perfilometric analysis revealed that 12- and 30-bladed carbide burs caused the roughest surface of Chelon Fil, followed by Sof-Lex discs and mylar band. There were no significant differences between the specimens submitted to finishing and polishing with Sof-Lex discs and the control group (mylar band) for Vitremer, nevertheless, the highest Ra values were obtained when 12- and 30-bladed burs were used. For Dyract, there was no significant difference between the three treatments. The mean values of superficial deposition of dye for Chelon Fil, Vitremer and Dyract were: 1.7261, 1.4759, 1.3318, respectively. There were no significant differences between the restorative materials when different finishing and polishing systems were used.

Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Relevância:

60.00% 60.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

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.

Relevância:

40.00% 40.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)