Resposta dos tecidos periodontais frente ao recobrimento de cavidades radiculares restauradas por materiais resinosos: estudo histomorfométrico em cães

Pós-graduação em Odontologia - FOA

Efeito de tratamento de superfície do titânio comercialmente puro na resistência de união com cimentos ionomérico e resinosos

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Influência da smear layer e sua espessura na adesão e citotoxicidade de um cimento de ionômero de vidro modificado por resina

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Estudo in vitro da resistência à fratura de raízes debilitadas. Efeito de diferentes tratamentos restauradores

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Análise das tensões geradas durante a contração de polimerização e aplicação de cargas em restaurações diretas de resina composta. Efeito da utilização de materiais para base ou forramento

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Avaliação da interface dentina/agentes protetores em restaurações com resina composta, através de microscopia eletrônica de varredura

Pós-graduação em Ciências Odontológicas - FOAR

Reparabilidadede um cimento ionomérico aderido ao esmalte com sistemas adesivos autocondicionantes

Pós-graduação em Ciências Odontológicas - FOAR

Efeito do pré-tratamento da dentina bovina na resistência ao cisalhamento de um cimento de ionômero de vidro resina modificado

Pós-graduação em Odontologia Restauradora - ICT

Efeito do laser Nd:Yag no pré-tratamento dentinário e selamento marginal, em restaurações de cimento de ionômero de vidro resina modificado

Pós-graduação em Odontologia Restauradora - ICT

Desgaste e rugosidade superficial de um cimento de ionômero de vidro nanoparticulado

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.

Comportamento do esmalte de dentes decíduos após desafio desmineralizante em função de materiais restauradores: estudo ao microscópio de luz polarizada

Pós-graduação em Biopatologia Bucal - ICT

Radiopacity evaluation of contemporary luting cements by digitization of images

The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of two conventional cements (Zinc Cement and Ketac Cem Easymix), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RelyX Luting 2) and six resin cements (Multilink, Bistite II DC, RelyX ARC, Fill Magic Dual Cement, Enforce and Panavia F) by digitization of images. Methods. Five disc-shaped specimens (10×1.0 mm) were made for each material, according to ISO 4049. After setting of the cements, radiographs were made using occlusal films and a graduated aluminum stepwedge varying from 1.0 to 16 mm in thickness. The radiographs were digitized, and the radiopacity of the cements was compared with the aluminum stepwedge using the software VIXWIN-2000. Data (mmAl) were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (=0.05). Results. The Zinc Cement was the most radiopaque material tested (<0.05). The resin cements presented higher radiopacity (<0.05) than the conventional (Ketac Cem Easymix) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RelyX Luting 2) cements, except for the Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce. The Multilink presented the highest radiopacity (<0.05) among the resin cements. Conclusion. The glass ionomer-based cements (Ketac Cem Easymix and RelyX Luting 2) and the resin cements (Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce) showed lower radiopacity values than the minimum recommended by the ISO standard.

Eroded dentin does not jeopardize the bond strength of adhesive restorative materials

This in vitro study evaluated the bond strength of adhesive restorative materials to sound and eroded dentin. Thirty-six bovine incisors were embedded in acrylic resin and ground to obtain flat buccal dentin surfaces. Specimens were randomly allocated in 2 groups: sound dentin (immersion in artificial saliva) and eroded dentin (pH cycling model - 3x / cola drink for 7 days). Specimens were then reassigned according to restorative material: glass ionomer cement (Ketac (TM) Molar Easy Mix), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Vitremer (TM)) or adhesive system with resin composite (Adper Single Bond 2 + Filtek Z250). Polyethylene tubes with an internal diameter of 0.76 mm were placed over the dentin and filled with the material. The microshear bond test was performed after 24 h of water storage at 37 degrees C. The failure mode was evaluated using a stereomicroscope (400x). Bond strength data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests (alpha = 0.05). Eroded dentin showed bond strength values similar to those for sound dentin for all materials. The adhesive system showed the highest bond strength values, regardless of the substrate (p < 0.0001). For all groups, the adhesive/mixed failure prevailed. In conclusion, adhesive materials may be used in eroded dentin without jeopardizing the bonding quality. It is preferable to use an etch-and-rinse adhesive system because it shows the highest bond strength values compared with the glass ionomer cements tested.

Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents

The aim was to compare eight types of luting agents when used to bond six indirect, laboratory restorative materials to dentin. Cylinders of the six restorative materials (Esteticor Avenir [gold alloy], Tritan [titanium], NobelRondo [feldspathic porcelain], Finesse All-Ceramic [leucite-glass ceramic], Lava [zirconia], and Sinfony [resin composite]) were ground and air-abraded. Cylinders of feldspathic porcelain and glass ceramic were additionally etched with hydrofluoric acid and were silane-treated. The cylinders were luted to ground human dentin with eight luting agents (DeTrey Zinc [zinc phosphate cement], Fuji I [conventional glass ionomer cement], Fuji Plus [resin-modified glass ionomer cement], Variolink II [conventional etch-and-rinse resin cement], Panavia F2.0 and Multilink [self-etch resin cements], and RelyX Unicem Aplicap and Maxcem [self-adhesive resin cements]). After water storage at 37°C for one week, the shear bond strength of the specimens (n=8/group) was measured, and the fracture mode was stereomicroscopically examined. Bond strength data were analyzed with two-factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Newman-Keuls' Multiple Range Test (?=0.05). Both the restorative material and the luting agent had a significant effect on bond strength, and significant interaction was noted between the two variables. Zinc phosphate cement and glass ionomer cements produced the lowest bond strengths, whereas the highest bond strengths were found with the two self-etch and one of the self-adhesive resin cements. Generally, the fracture mode varied markedly with the restorative material. The luting agents had a bigger influence on bond strength between restorative materials and dentin than was seen with the restorative material.

Dentinhaftung von Zementen. Der Haftverbund von Zementen mit Dentin in Kombination mit verschiedenen indirekten Restaurationsmaterialien

Einleitung: Die Anzahl zahnärztlicher Zemente sowie Restaurationsmaterialien steigt stetig. Die richtige Zementwahl für einen zuverlässigen Haftverbund zwischen Restaurationsmaterial und Zahnsubstanz ist von Interesse für den Kliniker. Ziel der vorliegenden in vitro-Studie war es daher, den Dentinhaftverbund von verschiedenen Zementen in Kombination mit verschiedenen indirekten Restaurationsmaterialien zu untersuchen. Material und Methoden: Zylindrische Probekörper aus sechs Restaurationsmaterialien (Goldlegierung, Titan, Feldspat-Keramik, Leuzit-Glaskeramik, Zirkon sowie Komposit) wurden an einem Ende plangeschliffen und sandgestrahlt. Die Zylinder aus Feldspat-Keramik und Leuzit-Glaskeramik wurden zusätzlich mit Flusssäure geätzt und silanisiert. Die Zylinder wurden anschliessend mit acht Zementen auf plangeschliffenes Dentin extrahierter menschlicher Zähne zementiert (ein Zink-Phosphatzement (DeTrey Zinc), ein konventioneller Glasionomerzement (Fuji I), ein kunststoffmodifizierter Glasionomerzement (Fuji Plus), ein "etch-&-rinse" Kompositzement (Variolink II), zwei "self-etch" Kompositzemente (Panavia F2.0 und Multilink) und zwei "self-adhesive" Kompositzemente (RelyX Unicem Aplicap und Maxcem)). Nach einwöchiger Wasserlagerung bei 37°C wurden die Dentinhaftwerte der Zylinder (n=8 pro Gruppe) mittels Scherkraft-Test gemessen. Zusätzlich wurde das Frakturmuster unter dem Lichtmikroskop bestimmt. Die Haftwerte wurden mittels zweifaktorieller ANOVA und einem post hoc-Test analysiert (Signifikanzniveau α = 0.05). Resultate: Sowohl das Restaurationsmaterial wie auch der Zement hatten einen statistisch signifikanten Effekt auf den Haftverbund. Der Zink-Phosphatzement sowie beide Glasionomerzemente zeigten die niedrigsten Haftwerte. Die höchsten Haftwerte wurden mit beiden "self-etch" und einem der zwei "self-adhesive" Kompositzementen erzielt. Im Allgemeinen variierte das Frakturmuster deutlich je nach Zement und Restaurationsmaterial. Schlussfolgerungen: Der Dentinhaftverbund wurde stärker vom Zement beeinflusst als vom Restaurationsmaterial. Die Kompositzemente erzielten im Grossen und Ganzen die höchsten Haftwerte.