837 resultados para fluoride intake
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
This study tested the fluoride-release rate and the root caries inhibitory effect of dental adhesives. In phase 1, the fluoride released from samples (n = 5) of the adhesives A (Optibond Solo), B (One-up Bond F), C (Prime & Bond NT), D (Tenure Quick), and also of the controls [+] (glass-ionomer cement) and [-] (non-fluoride releasing adhesive), was quantified on a daily basis during a pH-cycling, caries-simulating phenomenon. In phase 2, restorations were made in bovine root dentine slabs (n = 16) with the same adhesives associated with a non-fluoridated composite. Control [+] restorations were made entirely with glass-ionomer cement. Specimens were thermocycled and submitted to the pH-cycling regimen. Demineralization areas and the presence of the wall lesion (WL) and the inhibition zone (IZ) were determined by polarizing light microscopy in dentine adjacent to the restoration. The highest concentration of fluoride was released by the control [+]; adhesives A, B and C, also released fluoride. No detectable amount of fluoride was released by D or [-]. Smaller areas of demineralization were found with control [+], whereas the demineralization areas of adhesives A-D and [-] did not differ from each other. No WL was detected, and higher percentages of IZ were recorded to [+] and to adhesive A. Although some dental adhesives were able to release fluoride, they could not inhibit secondary caries development as well as the glass-ionomer cement.
Resumo:
The usefulness of fluoride-releasing restorations in secondary caries prevention may be questioned because of the presence of other common sources of fluoride and because of ageing of the restorations. This study tested the hypothesis that glass-ionomer cement restorations, either aged or unaged, do not prevent secondary root caries, when fluoride dentifrice is frequently used. Sixteen volunteers wore palatal appliances in two phases of 14 days, according to a 2 x 2 crossover design. In each phase the appliance was loaded with bovine root dentine slabs restored with either glass-ionomer or resin composite, either aged or unaged. Specimens were exposed to cariogenic challenge 4 times/day and to fluoridated dentifrice 3 times/day. The fluoride content in the biofilm (FB) formed on slabs and the mineral loss (Delta Z) around the restorations were analysed. No differences were found between restorative materials regarding the FB and the Delta Z, for either aged (p = 0.792 and p = 0.645, respectively) or unaged (p = 1.00 and p = 0.278, respectively) groups. Under the cariogenic and fluoride dentifrice exposure conditions of this study, the glass-ionomer restoration, either aged or unaged, did not provide additional protection against secondary root caries. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
Resumo:
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)