Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Añadir filtros








Intervalo de año
1.
J. appl. oral sci ; 26: e20170562, 2018. tab, graf
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS, BBO | ID: biblio-954492

RESUMEN

Abstract The objective of this study was to compare selective physical-mechanical properties, antibacterial effects and cytotoxicity of seven temporary restorative materials (TRM): five resin-based materials [Bioplic (B), Fill Magic Tempo (FM), Fermit inlay (F), Luxatemp LC (L) and Revotek LC (R)], and zinc oxide-eugenol cement (IRM) and glass ionomer cement (GIC) as the controls. Material and methods The physical-mechanical properties were evaluated by determining microleakage (ML), ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and Shore D hardness (SDH). In addition, the polymerization rate (Pr-1), depth of cure (DC), water sorption and solubility (WS/SL) were evaluated. The antimicrobial effects of the materials were assessed by biofilm accumulation of Streptococcus mutans (BT) and the direct contact test (DCT) by exposure to Enterococcus faecalis for 1 and 24 h, and cytotoxicity by MTT assay. The data were analyzed by ANOVA or Kruskall-Wallis tests, and a complementary post-hoc method (p<0.05). Results Group B, followed by FM and GIC had significantly lower percentages of microleakage in comparison with the other groups; Groups FM and L showed the highest WS, while Groups R and FM showed the significantly lowest SL values (p<0.05). Group R showed the statistically highest UTS mean and the lowest DC mean among all groups. Group F showed the lowest S. mutans biofilm accumulation (p=0.023). Only the Group L showed continued effect against E. faecalis after 1 h and 24 h in DCT. The L showed statistically lower viability cell when compared to the other groups. Conclusions These findings suggest the antibacterial effect of the temporary materials Fill Magic and Bioplic against S. mutans, while Luxatemp showed in vitro inhibition of S. mutans biofilm accumulation and E. faecalis growth. Regarding the cell viability test, Luxatemp was the most cytotoxic and Fill Magic was shown to be the least cytotoxic.


Asunto(s)
Animales , Bovinos , Ratones , Streptococcus mutans/efectos de los fármacos , Enterococcus faecalis/efectos de los fármacos , Resinas Compuestas/farmacología , Resinas Compuestas/química , Fibroblastos/efectos de los fármacos , Antibacterianos/sangre , Antibacterianos/farmacología , Ácidos Polimetacrílicos/farmacología , Ácidos Polimetacrílicos/química , Materiales de Obturación del Conducto Radicular/farmacología , Materiales de Obturación del Conducto Radicular/química , Solubilidad , Resistencia a la Tracción , Factores de Tiempo , Cemento de Óxido de Zinc-Eugenol/farmacología , Cemento de Óxido de Zinc-Eugenol/química , Ensayo de Materiales , Supervivencia Celular/efectos de los fármacos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Bisfenol A Glicidil Metacrilato/farmacología , Bisfenol A Glicidil Metacrilato/química , Restauración Dental Provisional/métodos , Cementos de Ionómero Vítreo/farmacología , Cementos de Ionómero Vítreo/química , Pruebas de Dureza , Metilmetacrilatos/farmacología , Metilmetacrilatos/química
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA