Loading...
Publication
Desempenho mecânico de resinas fluidas indicadas na cimentação adesiva de restaurações indiretas : estudo comparativo in vitro
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.46 MB | Adobe PDF |
Abstract(s)
Objectivo: Análise comparativa das propriedades mecânicas, resistência à flexão (σf) e
módulo de elasticidade (E), entre resinas flowable e três materiais utilizados em
cimentação adesiva.
Materiais e métodos: Foram obtidas um total de 30 amostras de três resinas flowable com conteúdo em carga diferente (G-Aenial™ Universal Flo, Tetric EvoFlow® e Admira
Fusion Flow), e três materiais utilizados em cimentação adesiva (o Multilink® Automix,
o Relyx™ veneer e o Z100™) a partir de um molde de aço inoxidável. Foram constituídos seis grupos de estudo, cada um formado por 5 amostras (n=5) de cada material utilizado.
Antes de serem levados para o local de ensaio, foram armazenadas em água, numa estufa a 37ºC, durante um período de 24h. Foi determinada a resistência à flexão (σf) e o módulo de elasticidade (E) através de um teste de flexão em 3 pontos, a uma velocidade de 1mm/min. Os resultados obtidos foram inseridos no programa Microsoft Excel, versão do Office 365, de modo a aplicar as fórmulas da resistência à flexão e do módulo de elasticidade. Os dados foram posteriormente analisados com recurso ao Software SPSS (versão 20.0 para o Mac), tendo sido realizado um teste one-way ANOVA e testes post hoc para um intervalo de confiança a 95%.
Resultados: Verificaram-se diferenças estatisticamente significativas na resistência à
flexão entre três grupos (Multilink® Automix vs Relyx™ veneer; Multilink® Automix
vs Tetric EvoFlow® e Multilink® Automix vs Admira Fusion Flow). O material com
maior resistência à flexãp (σf) foi o Multilink® e com maior módulo de elasticidade (E)
foi o Z100 ™, o material com maior conteúdo em carga inorgânica.
Conclusão: As resinas flowable não apresentam um desempenho mecânico semelhante
aos outros materiais utilizados.
Objectives: Comparative analysis of mechanical properties, flexural strength (σf) and modulus of elasticity (E), between flowable resins and three materials used in adhesive cementation. Materials and methods: A total of 30 samples of three flowale resins with diferente volume of filler content (G-Aenial™Universal Flo, Tetric EvoFlow® and Admira Fusion Flow), and three materials used in adhesive cementation (Multilink® Automix, Relyx™ veneer and Z100™) from a stainless steel mold. Six study groups werw formed, each material used. Before being taken to the test site, they were stored in water in a incubator at 37ºC for a period of 24hours. The flexural strength (σ) and modulus of elasticity (E) were determined by a 3-point bending test at a speed of 1mm/min. The results were inserted in the program Microsoft Excel, version of Office 365, in order to apply the formulas of flexural strength and modulus of elasticity. Data were later analyzed using SPSS Software (verison 20.0 for the Mac), and one-way ANOVA and post hoc tests were performed for a 95% confidence interval. Results: The were statistically significant diferences in flexural strength between three groups (Multilink® Automix vs Relyx™ veneer; Multilink® Automix vs Tetric EvoFlow® and Multilink® Automix vs Admira Fusion Flow). The material with the highest flexural strength (σf) it was Multilink® Automix and the highest elastic modulus it was Z100™, which corresponds to the material with the highest filler contente. Conclusion: Flowable resins do not exhibit mechanical performance similar to other materials used.
Objectives: Comparative analysis of mechanical properties, flexural strength (σf) and modulus of elasticity (E), between flowable resins and three materials used in adhesive cementation. Materials and methods: A total of 30 samples of three flowale resins with diferente volume of filler content (G-Aenial™Universal Flo, Tetric EvoFlow® and Admira Fusion Flow), and three materials used in adhesive cementation (Multilink® Automix, Relyx™ veneer and Z100™) from a stainless steel mold. Six study groups werw formed, each material used. Before being taken to the test site, they were stored in water in a incubator at 37ºC for a period of 24hours. The flexural strength (σ) and modulus of elasticity (E) were determined by a 3-point bending test at a speed of 1mm/min. The results were inserted in the program Microsoft Excel, version of Office 365, in order to apply the formulas of flexural strength and modulus of elasticity. Data were later analyzed using SPSS Software (verison 20.0 for the Mac), and one-way ANOVA and post hoc tests were performed for a 95% confidence interval. Results: The were statistically significant diferences in flexural strength between three groups (Multilink® Automix vs Relyx™ veneer; Multilink® Automix vs Tetric EvoFlow® and Multilink® Automix vs Admira Fusion Flow). The material with the highest flexural strength (σf) it was Multilink® Automix and the highest elastic modulus it was Z100™, which corresponds to the material with the highest filler contente. Conclusion: Flowable resins do not exhibit mechanical performance similar to other materials used.
Description
Dissertação para obtenção do grau de Mestre no Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz
Keywords
Resinas compostas flowable Agentes de cimentação adesiva Resistência à flexão Módulo de elasticidade