Análise rugosimétrica de duas cerâmicas odontológicas submetidas a diferentes tratamentos de superfície
Carregando...
Data
2003-02-27
Autores
Ticianeli, Márcio Giampá [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
Este estudo avaliou a eficiência de diferentes técnicas de acabamento e polimento sobre duas cerâmicas odontológicas (Duceram Plus e Duceram LFC), em relação à rugosidade média superficial (Ra). Foram preparados quarenta discos com 8 mm de diâmetro e 4 mm de espessura para cada uma das cerâmicas utilizadas, seguindo-se as recomendações do fabricante. Previamente ao glazeamento, todos os corpos-de-prova foram regularizados com o auxílio de lixas d'água de diferentes granulações (240,360 e 600, nesta ordem), recebendo, em seguida, uma camada de glaze. Os 40 corpos-de-prova de cada cerâmica foram divididos em 8 grupos com 5 representantes em cada um, recebendo diferentes tratamentos de superfície: T1- glaze; T2- desgaste com ponta diamantada fina e ultrafina; T3- T2 + sistema de acabamento e polimento dental Sof-Lex (3 M); T4- T3 + pasta diamantada; T5- T2 + kit de polimento Super-Snap (Shofu); T6- T5 + pasta diamantada; T7- T2 mais borrachas abrasivas Viking (KG Sorensen); T8- T7 + pasta diamantada. Foram realizadas cinco mensurações de rugosidade média (Ra, em æm) em cada corpo-de-prova, utilizando-se um rugosímetro ajustado com cut-off de 0,25 mm, extensão de tracejamento de 1,25 mm e velocidade de medição de 0,10 mm/s. Os resultados foram analisados estatisticamente pelos testes ANOVA e Tukey, com nível de significância de 5%. Os melhores tratamentos para ambas as cerâmicas avaliadas foram T3, T4, T5 e T6, apresentando semelhança estatística entre si; O glazeamento (T1) foi similar estatisticamente aos tratamentos T3, T4, T5 e T6 para a cerâmica Duceram LFC, em relação ao fator Ra; O tratamento T1 apresentou-se com diferença estatisticamente significante e mais rugoso que o tratamento T3, T4 e T6 para a cerâmica Duceram Plus, em relação ao fator Ra; As duas cerâmicas odontológicas avaliadas apresentaram...
This study assessed the efficacy of different current porcelain finishing and polishing procedures on two different dental ceramic (Duceram Plus and Duceram LFC) quantitatively with a profilometer. Forty disks (8 mm in diameter and 4 mm thick) were prepared for each dental ceramic according to the manufacturer's directions. Prior to glazing, all specimens' surfaces were abraded using a 240, 360 and 600-grit wet sandpaper. Then, all samples were glazed. The forty samples of each dental ceramic were divided into 8 groups of five specimens each, according to the surface treatment: T1- glaze; T2- abraded with fine and ultra fine diamond burs (KG Sorensen); T3- T2 following Sof-Lex (3M) polishing system; T4- T3 following diamond paste; T5- T2 following Super-Snap polishing kit (Shofu); T6- T5 following diamond paste; T7- Viking rubber wheels (KG Sorensen); T8- T7 following diamond paste. Five roughness measurements (Ra, æm) were performed on each disc using a profilometer with cut-off value of 0.25 mm and a tracing length of 1.25 mm and a speed of 0.1 mm per second. These values were tested using a two-way analysis of variance and Tukey test at 5% significance level. The result showed (to Ra factor) that T3, T4, T5 and T6 were the best surface treatment for both dental ceramic materials and were statistically equals; the glazed treatment (T1) was similar statistically to the polishing treatment T3, T4, T5 and T6 for Duceram LFC ceramic; the glazed treatment (T1) was different statistically and rougher than the polishing treatment T3, T4 e T6 for Duceram Plus ceramic; the two different dental ceramic had similar behavior when received the same surface treatment; and the diamond-abraded group (T2) had the rougher surface in both dental ceramic studied.
This study assessed the efficacy of different current porcelain finishing and polishing procedures on two different dental ceramic (Duceram Plus and Duceram LFC) quantitatively with a profilometer. Forty disks (8 mm in diameter and 4 mm thick) were prepared for each dental ceramic according to the manufacturer's directions. Prior to glazing, all specimens' surfaces were abraded using a 240, 360 and 600-grit wet sandpaper. Then, all samples were glazed. The forty samples of each dental ceramic were divided into 8 groups of five specimens each, according to the surface treatment: T1- glaze; T2- abraded with fine and ultra fine diamond burs (KG Sorensen); T3- T2 following Sof-Lex (3M) polishing system; T4- T3 following diamond paste; T5- T2 following Super-Snap polishing kit (Shofu); T6- T5 following diamond paste; T7- Viking rubber wheels (KG Sorensen); T8- T7 following diamond paste. Five roughness measurements (Ra, æm) were performed on each disc using a profilometer with cut-off value of 0.25 mm and a tracing length of 1.25 mm and a speed of 0.1 mm per second. These values were tested using a two-way analysis of variance and Tukey test at 5% significance level. The result showed (to Ra factor) that T3, T4, T5 and T6 were the best surface treatment for both dental ceramic materials and were statistically equals; the glazed treatment (T1) was similar statistically to the polishing treatment T3, T4, T5 and T6 for Duceram LFC ceramic; the glazed treatment (T1) was different statistically and rougher than the polishing treatment T3, T4 e T6 for Duceram Plus ceramic; the two different dental ceramic had similar behavior when received the same surface treatment; and the diamond-abraded group (T2) had the rougher surface in both dental ceramic studied.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Cerâmica odontológica, Maloclusão, Dental porcelain, Dental polishing, Surface roughness
Como citar
TICIANELI, Márcio Giampá. Análise rugosimétrica de duas cerâmicas odontológicas submetidas a diferentes tratamentos de superfície. 2003. 143 f. Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual Paulista, Faculdade de Odontologia de Araraquara, 2003.