Loading...
Publication
Avaliação in vitro da capacidade de selamento intra-coronal de diferentes materiais restauradores
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPG_27424 | 1.68 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Objetivos: Avaliar in vitro a diferente capacidade de selamento de quatro materiais restauradores usados como barreira intra-coronal e identificar qual o melhor protocolo a adotar, comparando os resultados com um estudo realizado por Mesquita, (2016), substituindo a técnica adesiva.
Métodos: Foram utilizados 70 dentes humanos monocanalares extraídos, divididos aleatoriamente por 6 grupos. Grupo 1 (n=15) selados Ionoseal® - VOCO®, Grupo 2 (n=15) selados GC Fuji II LC® - GA America®, Grupo 3 (n=15) selados GrandioSO® Flow - VOCO®, Grupo 4 (n=15) selados GrandioSO® - VOCO®. O Grupo 5 (n=5) e Grupo 6 (n=5) foram usados como controlo positivo e negativo, respetivamente. O selamento dos grupos 1, 3 e 4 foi precedido de sistema adesivo OptiBond® Solo Plus™ . Os 4 primeiros grupos foram submetidos a termociclagem de 500 ciclos com 20 segundos de duração, com variações de temperatura entre 5◦C-55◦C. Seguidamente, foram imersos em solução corante de azul de metileno a 2% para avaliação da infiltração dos materiais e poder, então, inferir-se sobre a sua capacidade seladora.
Resultados: O grupo 3 foi o que apresentou mais infiltração (2,4mm) e o grupo 2 foi o que apresentou menos (1,93mm); no entanto sem diferenças estatisticamente significativas (p=0,771) entre todos os materiais testados. O Ionoseal® apresentou menor infiltração quando precedido do sistema adesivo (p=0,02). Não se observaram diferenças significativas entre os dois sistemas adesivos, comparando com o estudo de Mesquita, (2016) (p=0,451).
Conclusão: Face aos resultados obtidos e à posterior análise estatística, todos os materiais de teste podem ser utilizados como barreira intracoronal.
Objectivs: To evaluate in vitro the different sealing ability of four restorative materials used as intracoronal barrier and to identify the best protocol to be adopted for the procedure in question, comparing the results with the previous study of Mesquita, (2016). Methods: In this study, 70 monocanalar human extracted teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups. Group 1 (n=15) were sealed with Ionoseal® - VOCO®, Group 2 (n=15) were sealed with GC Fuji II LC® - GA America® Group 3 (n=15) were sealed with GrandioSO® Flow 33-VOCO®, Group 4 (n=15) were sealed GrandioSO® - VOCO®. Group 5 (n=5) and Group 6 (n=5) were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. The sealing of groups 1, 3 and 4 was preceded by OptiBond® Solo Plus™ adhesive system. The first 4 groups were submitted thermocycling of 500 cycles with 20 seconds duration, with temperature variations between 5 °C-55 °C. They were then immersed in a 2% methylene blue dye solution to evaluate the infiltration of the materials and then inferred on their sealing ability. Results: Group 3 presented the most infiltration (2,4 mm) and group 2 presented the lowest infiltration (1,93 mm), however there were no statistically significant differences (p= 0,771) among the materials tested. The Ionoseal® showed less infiltration when preceded by the adhesive system (p=0,02). There were no significant differences between the two adhesive systems, comparing with Mesquita, (2016) (p= 0,451). Conclusions: The comparison between the results obtained and the statistical analysis, all test materials can be used as an intracoronal barrier.
Objectivs: To evaluate in vitro the different sealing ability of four restorative materials used as intracoronal barrier and to identify the best protocol to be adopted for the procedure in question, comparing the results with the previous study of Mesquita, (2016). Methods: In this study, 70 monocanalar human extracted teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups. Group 1 (n=15) were sealed with Ionoseal® - VOCO®, Group 2 (n=15) were sealed with GC Fuji II LC® - GA America® Group 3 (n=15) were sealed with GrandioSO® Flow 33-VOCO®, Group 4 (n=15) were sealed GrandioSO® - VOCO®. Group 5 (n=5) and Group 6 (n=5) were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. The sealing of groups 1, 3 and 4 was preceded by OptiBond® Solo Plus™ adhesive system. The first 4 groups were submitted thermocycling of 500 cycles with 20 seconds duration, with temperature variations between 5 °C-55 °C. They were then immersed in a 2% methylene blue dye solution to evaluate the infiltration of the materials and then inferred on their sealing ability. Results: Group 3 presented the most infiltration (2,4 mm) and group 2 presented the lowest infiltration (1,93 mm), however there were no statistically significant differences (p= 0,771) among the materials tested. The Ionoseal® showed less infiltration when preceded by the adhesive system (p=0,02). There were no significant differences between the two adhesive systems, comparing with Mesquita, (2016) (p= 0,451). Conclusions: The comparison between the results obtained and the statistical analysis, all test materials can be used as an intracoronal barrier.
Description
Keywords
Selamento coronal Selamento endodôntico Barreira coronal Infiltração endodôntica Micro-infiltração Reinfeção coronal Coronal sealing Endodontic sealing Coronal barrier Endodontic leakage Micro-leakage Canal reinfection