Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add filters








Language
Year range
1.
Braz. dent. j ; 21(4): 327-331, 2010. tab
Article in English | LILACS | ID: lil-562094

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture strength of teeth with different cavosurface margin cavity preparations and restored with composite resin and different adhesive systems. Eighty premolars were randomly divided in 8 groups, as follow: G1- sound teeth; G2- MOD preparation (no restoration); G3- Adper Single Bond without bevel preparation (butt joint); G4- Adper Single Bond with bevel preparation; G5- Adper Single Bond with chamfer preparation; G6- Clearfil SE Bond without bevel (butt joint); G7- Clearfil SE Bond with bevel preparation; G8- Clearfil SE Bond with chamfer preparation. The adhesive systems were applied according to manufacturers’ instructions. Composite resin (Filtek Z250) was incrementally placed in all cavities. After 24 h, the specimens were tested in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey’s test (fracture strength) and Fisher’s exact test (fracture pattern). The confidence level was set at 95 percent for all tests. Prepared and non-restored teeth showed the worst performance and G4 exhibited the highest fracture strength among all groups (p<0.05). In conclusion, all restorative treatments were able to recover the fracture strength of non-restored teeth to levels similar to those of sound teeth. Using a total-etch adhesive system with bevel preparation significantly improved the resistance to fracture.


O objetivo deste estudo foi determinar, in vitro, a resistência à fratura de pré-molares superiores com diferentes preparos do ângulo cavossuperficial e restaurados com resina composta com distintos sistemas adesivos. Foram selecionados 80 dentes, divididos em 8 grupos: G1- hígidos; G2- preparos M.O.D.; G3- Single Bond sem bisel; G4- Single Bond com bisel reto; G5- Single Bond com bisel chanfrado; G6- Clearfil SE Bond sem bisel; G7- Clearfil SE Bond com bisel reto e G8- Clearfil SE Bond com bisel chanfrado. Os grupos 3-8 foram restaurados com resina composta Z250, pela técnica incremental. Os corpos-de-prova foram submetidos ao teste de resistência à fratura em máquina universal de ensaios, a uma velocidade de 0,5 mm/min. Os dados foram analisados estatisticamente pelos testes ANOVA, Tukey e exato de Fisher (α=0,05). O grupo 2 apresentou resistência inferior aos demais e o grupo 4 mostrou-se mais resistente à fratura do que os demais grupos (p<0,05). Concluiu-se que o bisel reto foi o preparo mais efetivo quando associado a adesivos dentinários com condicionamento ácido prévio. Ambos adesivos dentinários usados foram capazes de devolver a resistência perdida com o preparo cavitário.


Subject(s)
Humans , Dental Marginal Adaptation , Dental Cavity Preparation/methods , Dental Cements/therapeutic use , Dental Restoration, Permanent/adverse effects , Tooth Fractures/etiology , Analysis of Variance , Bicuspid , Compressive Strength , Composite Resins/therapeutic use , Dental Instruments , Dental Stress Analysis , Dental Bonding/methods , Dental Cavity Preparation/instrumentation , Dental Restoration, Permanent/methods , Resin Cements/therapeutic use , Statistics, Nonparametric
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL