Loading...
Publication
Efeito de diferentes preparações micro-mecânicas da superfície de diferentes cerâmicas na força de adesão de brackets ortodônticos, utilizando o sistema adesivo Assure Plus All
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 MB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Objetivo: Comparar a força de adesão de brackets em superfícies de cerâmica feldspática, de dissilicato de lítio e de zircónia, preparadas com ácido hidrofluorídrico ou jateamento de óxido de alumínio, utilizando o sistema adesivo Assure® Plus All.
Materiais e métodos: A amostra (n = 72) foi dividida em seis grupos de 12 espécimes. Os Grupos 1, 3 e 5, compostos por superfícies de cerâmica feldspática, de dissilicato de lítio e de zircónia, respetivamente, foram preparadas com ácido hidrofluorídrico a 9,6 %, e os Grupos 2, 4 e 6, compostos por superfícies de cerâmica feldspática, de dissilicato de lítio e de zircónia, respetivamente, foram preparados com jateamento de óxido de alumínio de 50 μm. Foram colados brackets utilizando o sistema adesivo Assure® Plus All. A amostra foi sujeita a 10 000 ciclos termais a 5º e a 55ºC. A força de adesão foi obtida pelo teste de cisalhamento à velocidade de 1 mm/min. O Índice de Remanescente Adesivo analisou as falhas adesivas. Foram realizados os testes ANOVA One-way e Kruskal-Wallis (p ≤ 0,05). Resultados: Os valores médios de força de adesão dos brackets nos Grupos 1, 3 e 5 foram de 7,16 ± 1,46 MPa, 9,27 ± 2,34 MPa e 8,51 ± 1,99 MPa, respetivamente, e nos Grupos 2, 4 e 6 foram de 7,48 ± 1,84 MPa, 4,41 ± 1,99 MPa e 4,26 ± 2,78 MPa, respetivamente. Verificaram-se diferenças estatisticamente significativas na força de adesão dos diferentes grupos.
Conclusão: O ataque com ácido hidrofluorídrico é eficaz na colagem de brackets a superfícies dos três tipos de cerâmica, utilizando o sistema adesivo Assure® Plus All. Já o jateamento de óxido de alumínio apenas se mostrou eficaz na colagem de brackets a superfícies de cerâmica feldspática.
Aim: Comparison of the bond strength of brackets on feldspathic porcelain, lithium disilicate porcelain and zirconium surfaces, prepared with hydrofluoric acid or aluminum oxide blasting, using the adhesive system Assure® Plus All. Materials and methods: The sample (n = 72) was divided into six groups of 12 specimens. Groups 1, 3 and 5, composed of feldspathic porcelain, lithium disilicate porcelain and zirconium surfaces, respectively, were prepared with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid, and Groups 2, 4 and 6, composed of feldspathic porcelain, lithium disilicate porcelain and zirconium surfaces, respectively, were prepared with 50 μm aluminum oxide blasting. Brackets were adhered using the adhesive system Assure® Plus All. The sample was subjected to 10 000 thermal cycles at 5º and 55ºC. The bond strength was obtained with the shear test, at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The Adhesive Remnant Index analyzed the adhesive failures. ANOVA One-way and Kruskal-Wallis tests (p ≤ 0.05) were performed. Results: The medium values of brackets’ bond strength in Groups 1, 3 and 5 were 7.16 ± 1.46 MPa, 9.27 ± 2.34 MPa and 8.51 ± 1.99 MPa, respectively, and in Groups 2, 4 and 6 were 7.48 ± 1.84 MPa, 4.41 ± 1.99 MPa and 4.26 ± 2.78 MPa, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in the bond strength of the different groups. Conclusion: The attack with hydrofluoric acid is effective in bonding brackets to surfaces of the three types of porcelain, using the Assure® Plus All adhesive system. Aluminum oxide blasting was only effective in bonding brackets to feldspathic porcelain surfaces.
Aim: Comparison of the bond strength of brackets on feldspathic porcelain, lithium disilicate porcelain and zirconium surfaces, prepared with hydrofluoric acid or aluminum oxide blasting, using the adhesive system Assure® Plus All. Materials and methods: The sample (n = 72) was divided into six groups of 12 specimens. Groups 1, 3 and 5, composed of feldspathic porcelain, lithium disilicate porcelain and zirconium surfaces, respectively, were prepared with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid, and Groups 2, 4 and 6, composed of feldspathic porcelain, lithium disilicate porcelain and zirconium surfaces, respectively, were prepared with 50 μm aluminum oxide blasting. Brackets were adhered using the adhesive system Assure® Plus All. The sample was subjected to 10 000 thermal cycles at 5º and 55ºC. The bond strength was obtained with the shear test, at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The Adhesive Remnant Index analyzed the adhesive failures. ANOVA One-way and Kruskal-Wallis tests (p ≤ 0.05) were performed. Results: The medium values of brackets’ bond strength in Groups 1, 3 and 5 were 7.16 ± 1.46 MPa, 9.27 ± 2.34 MPa and 8.51 ± 1.99 MPa, respectively, and in Groups 2, 4 and 6 were 7.48 ± 1.84 MPa, 4.41 ± 1.99 MPa and 4.26 ± 2.78 MPa, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in the bond strength of the different groups. Conclusion: The attack with hydrofluoric acid is effective in bonding brackets to surfaces of the three types of porcelain, using the Assure® Plus All adhesive system. Aluminum oxide blasting was only effective in bonding brackets to feldspathic porcelain surfaces.
Description
Dissertação para obtenção do grau de Mestre no Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz
Keywords
Força de adesão Brackets Cerâmica Preparação micro-mecânica