Loading...
Publication
Estudo in vitro da resistência adesiva ao esmalte, por microtração, de um sistema adesivo universal comercial sem Bis-Gma e de sistemas adesivos universais comerciais.
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 824.02 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Objetivo: O estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a resistência adesiva ao esmalte, por
microtração, de um sistema adesivo universal comercial sem Bis-GMA comparativamente com outros sistemas adesivos universais comerciais.
Materiais e métodos: Foram utilizados 15 dentes molares hígidos, extraídos há menos
de 6 meses, sendo distribuídos aleatoriamente por 3 grupos (n=5). Posteriormente, os
dentes foram seccionados paralelamente ao longo eixo do dente, no sentido vestíbulolingual
ou vestíbulo-palatino de forma a obtermos 2 espécimes por grupo (n=10). Foi efetuada a simulação da Smear layer no esmalte, através de discos abrasivos de CSi com 600 grit e de seguida foram aplicados os sistemas adesivos selecionados para cada grupo segundo o protocolo Etch-and-rinse e de acordo com as instruções dos fabricantes: Grupo1 – Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE, St Paul, USA); Grupo 2 – Futurabond U (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Alemanha); Grupo 3 – Ambar Aps (DentscareSCARE Ltda, Brasil).
Após a aplicação dos sistemas adesivos, foram construídos blocos de resina (FiltekTM
Z250), com aproximadamente 6 a 8 mm, sendo fotopolimerizados a cada 2 mm.
Após 24h de armazenamento em água desionizada, numa estufa a 37ºC, os espécimes
foram seccionados em palitos de 1 mm2. De seguida, os palitos viáveis obtidos em cada
grupo, foram submetidos a um teste de microtração (μTBS) à velocidade constante de 0.5 mm/min sendo registados os valores da força aplicada no momento da fratura do palito.
As fraturas foram classificadas como adesivas, coesivas de resina, coesivas de esmalte ou mistas. Os resultados foram analisados com recurso a um modelo linear misto (p≤0,05) através do programa SPSS.
Resultados: Os resultados obtidos não demonstram diferenças significativas na
resistência adesiva entre os três adesivos estudados (Scotchbond Universal, Futurabond
U e Ambar Aps) (p≥0.05, sendo o obtido p=0.195).
Conclusões: Apesar das limitações deste estudo in vitro, podemos concluir que a
utilização de sistemas adesivos universais sem Bis-GMA é igualmente eficaz quando
comparados com os sistemas adesivos que contém Bis-GMA, não existindo diferenças
estatisticamente significativas na resistência adesiva ao esmalte entre os três sistemas
adesivos universais. Desta forma é aceite a hipótese nula.
Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the enamel adhesive strength, by microtensile bond strength, of a commercial universal adhesive system without Bis-GMA compared to other commercial universal adhesive systems. Materials and methods: Fifteen healthy molar teeth extracted less than 6 months ago were used and randomly assigned to three groups (n=5). Subsequently, the teeth were sectioned parallel to the long axis of the tooth, in the buco-lingual or buco-palatal direction, in order to obtain 2 specimens per group (n=10). The Smear layer was simulated in the enamel using 600 grit CSi abrasive discs and then the adhesive systems selected for each group were applied according to the Etch-and-rinse protocol and according to the manufacturers' instructions: Group 1 - Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE, St Paul, USA); Group 2 - Futurabond U (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Alemanha); Group 3 - Amber Aps (DentscareSCARE Ltda, Brasil). After the application of the adhesive systems, resin blocks (FiltekTM Z250) were built, with approximately 6 to 8 mm, being photopolymerized every 2 mm. After 24 hours of storage in deionized water, in an oven at 37ºC, the specimens were sectioned in 1 mm2 beam. Then, the viable beams obtained in each group were submitted to a microtensile bond strength test (μTBS) at a constant speed of 0.5 mm/min and the values of the force applied at the time of beam fracture were recorded. The fractures were classified as adhesive, resin cohesive, enamel cohesive or mixed. The results were analyzed using a mixed linear model (p≤0,05) using the SPSS software. Results: The results obtained did not show significant differences in adhesive strength between the three adhesives studied (Scotchbond Universal, Futurabond U and Amber Aps) (p≥0.05, with p=0.195). Conclusions: Despite the limitations of this in vitro study, we can conclude that the use of universal adhesive systems without Bis-GMA is equally effective when compared to the adhesive systems containing Bis-GMA, with no statistically significant differences in enamel adhesive strength between the three universal adhesive systems. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the enamel adhesive strength, by microtensile bond strength, of a commercial universal adhesive system without Bis-GMA compared to other commercial universal adhesive systems. Materials and methods: Fifteen healthy molar teeth extracted less than 6 months ago were used and randomly assigned to three groups (n=5). Subsequently, the teeth were sectioned parallel to the long axis of the tooth, in the buco-lingual or buco-palatal direction, in order to obtain 2 specimens per group (n=10). The Smear layer was simulated in the enamel using 600 grit CSi abrasive discs and then the adhesive systems selected for each group were applied according to the Etch-and-rinse protocol and according to the manufacturers' instructions: Group 1 - Scotchbond Universal (3M ESPE, St Paul, USA); Group 2 - Futurabond U (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven, Alemanha); Group 3 - Amber Aps (DentscareSCARE Ltda, Brasil). After the application of the adhesive systems, resin blocks (FiltekTM Z250) were built, with approximately 6 to 8 mm, being photopolymerized every 2 mm. After 24 hours of storage in deionized water, in an oven at 37ºC, the specimens were sectioned in 1 mm2 beam. Then, the viable beams obtained in each group were submitted to a microtensile bond strength test (μTBS) at a constant speed of 0.5 mm/min and the values of the force applied at the time of beam fracture were recorded. The fractures were classified as adhesive, resin cohesive, enamel cohesive or mixed. The results were analyzed using a mixed linear model (p≤0,05) using the SPSS software. Results: The results obtained did not show significant differences in adhesive strength between the three adhesives studied (Scotchbond Universal, Futurabond U and Amber Aps) (p≥0.05, with p=0.195). Conclusions: Despite the limitations of this in vitro study, we can conclude that the use of universal adhesive systems without Bis-GMA is equally effective when compared to the adhesive systems containing Bis-GMA, with no statistically significant differences in enamel adhesive strength between the three universal adhesive systems. Thus, the null hypothesis is accepted.
Description
Dissertação para obtenção do grau de Mestre no Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz
Keywords
Esmalte Adesão Adesivo universal Etch-and-rinse Microtração Resistência adesiva Bis-GMA Free