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








Intervalo de ano
1.
Artigo em Inglês | IMSEAR | ID: sea-169454

RESUMO

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.
Artigo em Inglês | IMSEAR | ID: sea-139990

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Condicionamento Ácido do Dente/métodos , Resinas Acrílicas/química , Corantes/diagnóstico , Compômeros/química , Compômeros/efeitos da radiação , Lâmpadas de Polimerização Dentária , Infiltração Dentária/classificação , Cimentos de Ionômeros de Vidro/química , Cimentos de Ionômeros de Vidro/efeitos da radiação , Humanos , Teste de Materiais , Azul de Metileno/diagnóstico , Ácidos Fosfóricos/química , Selantes de Fossas e Fissuras/química , Selantes de Fossas e Fissuras/efeitos da radiação , Cimentos de Resina/química , Cimentos de Resina/efeitos da radiação , Resinas Sintéticas/química , Resinas Sintéticas/efeitos da radiação , Temperatura , Fatores de Tempo , Preparo do Dente/métodos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA