Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Añadir filtros








Intervalo de año
1.
Artículo en Inglés | IMSEAR | ID: sea-169454

RESUMEN

Aim: To determine the degree to which trabecular bone contributes to the radiographic visibility of laminadura (LD). Study Design: Human dry mandibles were obtained, and a series of radiographs were acquired in the premolar region. Radiographs taken were: (1) Before removal of any bone, (2) After removal of small amount of cortical bone at the apex of tooth, (3) Removal of trabecular bone, (4) Smoothing of endosteal surface of cortical bone. The radiographs were projected to a panel of six oral radiologists, and they were asked to judge the visibility of LD. Results: Chi‑square analysis revealed a significant radiographic difference between radiographs made initially and after removal of trabecular bone, cortical bone and smoothing the endosteal surface of cortical bone. Conclusion: There was statistically significant difference in the visibility of loss of LD when trabecular bone is lost. LD can be visible only if the endosteal surface of the cortical bone and trabecular bone is intact.

2.
Artículo en Inglés | IMSEAR | ID: sea-139990

RESUMEN

Aim: This study compared the microleakage of light cure glass ionomer and flowable compomer as pit and fissure sealant, with and without tooth preparation. Materials and Methods: One hundred premolars that were extracted for orthodontic purpose were used. After adequate storage and surface debridement, the teeth were randomly divided into four groups. In Group I and III, the occlusal surfaces were left intact, while in Group II and Group IV, tooth surfaces were prepared. Teeth in Group I and Group II were sealed with Light cure glass ionomer, whereas flowable compomer was used to seal teeth in Group III and IV. The sealed teeth were then immersed in dye. Subsequently, buccolingual sections were made and each section was examined under stereomicroscope for microleakage followed by scoring. Results: In group I, microleakage score ranged from 2 to 4 with mean of 3.64 (±0.757), while in group II the range was observed to be 1-4 with mean of 2.88 (±1.236). Group III recorded a range of 0-4 with the mean of 2.20 (±1.443) while 0-2 and 0.60 (±0.707) being the range and mean observed, respectively, for group IV. Conclusion: Flowable compomer placed after tooth preparation showed better penetration and less marginal leakage than the light cure glass ionomer.


Asunto(s)
Grabado Ácido Dental/métodos , Resinas Acrílicas/química , Colorantes/diagnóstico , Compómeros/química , Compómeros/efectos de la radiación , Luces de Curación Dental , Filtración Dental/clasificación , Cementos de Ionómero Vítreo/química , Cementos de Ionómero Vítreo/efectos de la radiación , Humanos , Ensayo de Materiales , Azul de Metileno/diagnóstico , Ácidos Fosfóricos/química , Selladores de Fosas y Fisuras/química , Selladores de Fosas y Fisuras/efectos de la radiación , Cementos de Resina/química , Cementos de Resina/efectos de la radiación , Resinas Sintéticas/química , Resinas Sintéticas/efectos de la radiación , Temperatura , Factores de Tiempo , Preparación del Diente/métodos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA