927 resultados para glass-ionomer-resin composite hybrid material
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Reabilitação Oral - FOAR
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Ciências Odontológicas - FOAR
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Odontologia - FOA
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Ciências Odontológicas - FOAR
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Pós-graduação em Odontologia - ICT
Resumo:
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
Resumo:
In this work of tensile strength was evaluated the efficacy of 4 cements (S. S. White zinc phoshate, Ketac Cem Easymix glass ionomer, RelyX Luting 2 composite resin/glass ionomer and Panavia 21 TC special acrylic resin) used to fix NiCr crowns to usinated titanium alloy abutments. Were used 40 abutments distributed in groups of 10 elements, to each material. The mechanical essays were developed at a MTS 810 universal machine, adjusted to a 0.5 mm/m velocity. The ANOVA applied to data pointed out the existence of significant differences between groups; the subsequent Tukey´s test (p<0.05) also detected significant differences, except at comparisons of phosphate versus RelyX and phosphate versus Ketac Cem. The better performance was presented by Panavia 21 (1,127.996 N); RelyX (478.197 N) showed itself similar only to phosphate (430.662 N), wich had a performance similar to that of Ketac Cem (227.705 N).
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.
Resumo:
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of Er:YAG (L) and diamond drills (DD) on: 1) the microshear bond strength (MPa); 2) the adhesive interface of two-step (TS) – Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose and one-step (OS) adhesives – Adper EasyOne, both from 3M ESPE. Material and methods: According to the preparation condition and adhesives, the samples were divided into four groups: DD_TS (control); DD_OS; L_TS and L_OS. 60 bovine incisors were randomly divided into experimental and groups: 40 for microshear bond strength (n = 10) and 20 for the adhesive interface morphology [6 to measure the thickness of the hybrid layer (HL) and length of tags (t) by CLSM (n = 3); 12 to the adhesive interface morphology by SEM (n = 3) and 2 to illustrate the effect of the instruments on dentine by SEM (n = 1)]. To conduct the microshear bond strength test, four cylinders (0.7 mm in diameter and 1 mm in height with area of adhesion of 0.38 mm) were constructed with resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT – 3M ESPE) on each dentin surface treated by either L or DD and after adhesives application. Microshear bond strength was performed in universal testing machine (EMIC 2000) with load cell of 500 kgf and a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm / min. Adhesive interface was characterized by thickness of hybrid layer (HL) and length of tags (t) in nm, with the aid of UTHSCSA ImageTool software. Results: Microshear bond strength values were: L_TS 34.10 ± 19.07, DD_TS 24.26 ± 9.35, L_OS 33.18 ± 12.46, DD_OS 21.24 ± 13.96. Two-way ANOVA resulted in statistically significant differences only for instruments (p = 0.047). Mann-Whitney identified the instruments which determined significant differences for HL thickness and tag length (t). Concerning to the adhesive types, these differences were only observed for (t). Conclusion: It can be concluded that 1) laser Er:YAG results in higher microshear bond strength values regardless of the adhesive system (TS and OS); 2) the tags did not significant affect the microshear bond strength; 3) the adhesive interface was affected by both the instruments for cavity preparation and the type of adhesive system used.
Resumo:
The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of root canal filling techniques on root fracture resistance and to analyze, by finite element analysis (FEA), the expansion of the endodontic sealer in two different root canal techniques. Thirty single-rooted human teeth were instrumented with rotary files to a standardized working length of 14 mm. The specimens were embedded in acrylic resin using plastic cylinders as molds, and allocated into 3 groups (n=10): G(lateral) - lateral condensation; G(single-cone) - single cone; G(tagger) - Tagger's hybrid technique. The root canals were prepared to a length of 11 mm with the #3 preparation bur of a tapered glass fiber-reinforced composite post system. All roots received glass fiber posts, which were adhesively cemented and a composite resin core was built. All groups were subjected to a fracture strength test (1 mm/min, 45°). Data were analyzed statistically by one-way ANOVA with a significance level of 5%. FEA was performed using two models: one simulated lateral condensation and Tagger's hybrid technique, and the other one simulated the single-cone technique. The second model was designed with an amount of gutta-percha two times smaller and a sealer layer two times thicker than the first model. The results were analyzed using von Mises stress criteria. One-way ANOVA indicated that the root canal filling technique affected the fracture strength (p=0.004). The G(lateral) and G(tagger) produced similar fracture strength values, while G(single-cone) showed the lowest values. The FEA showed that the single-cone model generated higher stress in the root canal walls. Sealer thickness seems to influence the fracture strength of restored endodontically treated teeth.
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)