ABSTRACT
O objetivo deste trabalho foi comparar, in vitro, diferentes técnicas de acabamento de preparos por meio da análise da rugosidade superficial e microscopia eletrônica de varredora (MEV). Cinquenta e seis pré-molares humanos foram divididos em quatro grupos, (n= 10): Grupo I - sem acabamento (grupo controle); Grupo II - ponta diamantada 2135 F e 2135 FF; Grupo III - ponta 2135 acopladas em um contra ângulo multiplicador (Kavo Koncept 1:5) e Grupo IV - ponta CVD cilíndrica 8.2137 (CVDentus- Clorovale) em aparelho de ultra-som (Profi II - Dabi Atlante). Após o acabamento, dez espécimes de cada grupo foram submetidos à leitura rugosimétrica e quatro foram analisados no MEV (Microscopia eletrônica de varredura). Sessenta e quatro micrografias foram analisadas por doze examinadores. Os valores de Ra (média±dp) foram: GI- 1,46±0,2; GII- 0,87±0,3; GIII- 1,6±0,4 e GIV- 1,34±0,2. Após teste de t-Student, observou-se que não houve diferença significativa entre os grupos I (controle), III (multiplicador) e IV (CVD). Entretanto, houve diferença entre o grupo I e II; Grupo II e III; GII e I. Após teste de Mann-Whitney para análise em MEV, observou-se que não houve diferença significativa entre os grupos I (controle), II (ponta diamantada fina e extra-fina) e III (multiplicador). Conclui-se que o grupo que apresentou menor valor de rugosidade (Ra) foi o grupo II, realizado com pontas diamantadas 2135 F e 2135FF montadas em alta rotação. Para análise em MEV, concluiu-se que a superfície produzida pelo grupo IV (CVD) foi a mais rugosa.
The objective of this study was to compare, in vitro, different techniques for finishing preparations of facets indirect through the analysis of surface roughness and electron microscopy sweeper (SEM). Forty human premolars were divided into 4 groups according to the finishing of the cavity preparation for indirect facets: Group I (n = 10) - unfinished (control group), Group II (n = 10) - diamond bur 2135 F and 2135FF, Group III (n = 10)- tip in 2135 engaged in a multiplier (Contra angle multiplier Koncept Kavo 1:5) and Group IV (n = 10) tip cylindrical CVDcat. 8.2137 (CVDentus - Clorovale) in equipment ultrasound (Profi II- Dabi Atlante). The reading was held rugosimetric relief meter Mitutoyo SJ-201. For SEM analysis were prepared 16 teeth were divided into four groups according to the finishing technique described above, with four teeth in each group, totaling 64 images, analyzed by twelve examiners. The values of Ra (mean ± SD) were: GI-1.46 ± 0.2, GII - 0.87 ± 0.3, GIII, 1.6 ± 0.4 and GIV-1.34 ± 0.2 . After test t-test (Figure 1), it was observed that there was no significant difference between groups I (control),III (multiplier) and IV (CVD). However, there was difference between group I and II, Group II and III, GII and I. After the Mann-Whitney test for analysis by SEM, it was observed that there was no significant difference between groups I (control), II (thin diamond point) and III (multiplier). However, there was difference between group I, II, III with group IV (CVD), with p <0.001. It follows that the group with lowest roughness (Ra) (smoother) the group II was performed with diamond burs and 2135 F 2135FF mounted on heavy rotation. For SEM analysis, itwas concluded that surface produced by the group IV (CVD) was the most wrinkled. The values assigned by examiners through the analysis of SEM were low averaging less than 5.0 for all groups.