Publicação:
Surface roughness analysis of dental ceramics treated with hydrofl uoric acid and aluminum oxide jet

dc.contributor.authorPorto, Thiago Soares [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorTonetto, Mateus Rodrigues [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorLorenzetti, Camila Cruz [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorBandéca, Matheus Coelho
dc.contributor.authorBorges, Alvaro Henrique
dc.contributor.authorPorto Neto, Sizenando de Toledo [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorCampos, Edson Alves de [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorDinelli, Wellington [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Ceuma
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de Cuiabá (UNIC)
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-06T16:13:25Z
dc.date.available2015-08-06T16:13:25Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of 5 indirect restorative materials treated with hydrofluoric acid to 10%, with aluminum oxide jet and a combination of both. The specimens was prepared with 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm thickness, divided into fi ve groups: (1) Ceromer (CeseadII-Kuraray), (2) Leucite crystals ceramics (IPS EmpressIIIvoclarforcasket), (3) glass ceramic with fluorapatite (IPS D. Sign-Ivoclar), (4) lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS Empress II-Ivoclar restorations), (5) ceramics (Cergogold-Degussa). For all groups were performed the controls, and the surfaces with the 3 types of treatment. For testing roughness used the rugosimeter Taylor/Hobson-Precision, model form tracerSV-C525 high sensitivity. After confi rmation of variance analysis with a signifi cance level of 1% (p < 0.01), there was equality between the average roughness of materials from groups 1, 3 and 5, and the group 2 was different from the others. It was also found that the ceramics of the group 5 behaved similar to group 4. However the lowest average roughness was observed in group 2 ceramic. In the evaluation between the types of treatment, the aluminum oxide jet and associations and blasting with hydrofl uoric acid were similar, and different isolated hydrofl uoric acid, and 3 types of treatment signifi cantly higher than the control group. All treatments promoted superfi cial alterations in all tested materials.en
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Ceuma, Departamento de Pós-graduação em Odontologia
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade de Cuiabá, Departamento de Ciências Odontológicas Integradas
dc.description.affiliationUnespUniversidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Faculdade de Odontologia de Araraquara
dc.format.extent1-5
dc.identifierhttp://www.jaypeejournals.com/eJournals/Abstract.aspx?id=5678&AID=15&num=2
dc.identifier.citationWorld Journal of Dentistry, v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-5, 2014.
dc.identifier.doi10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1248
dc.identifier.issn0976-6006
dc.identifier.lattes7751829021886075
dc.identifier.lattes4566192900068248
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/125904
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofWorld Journal of Dentistry
dc.relation.ispartofsjr0,107
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso aberto
dc.sourceCurrículo Lattes
dc.subjectLaboratory researchen
dc.subjectHydrofluoric aciden
dc.subjectAluminum oxideen
dc.titleSurface roughness analysis of dental ceramics treated with hydrofl uoric acid and aluminum oxide jeten
dc.typeArtigo
dspace.entity.typePublication
unesp.author.lattes7751829021886075
unesp.author.lattes4566192900068248
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Faculdade de Odontologia, Araraquarapt
unesp.departmentOdontologia Restauradora - FOARpt

Arquivos