Comparative analysis of different prophylactic methods for roughness of primary tooth enamel

dc.contributor.authorFava, Marcelo [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorFrascino, Alexandre Viana
dc.contributor.authorBalducci, Ivan [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorRamos, Carolina Judica [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-11T17:22:21Z
dc.date.available2018-12-11T17:22:21Z
dc.date.issued2018-01-01
dc.description.abstractObjective: The purpose of this study was to comparatively evaluate quantitative effects of three different prophylactic methods of surface polishing treatments for primary teeth compared to a standardized control group. Material and Methods: 48 naturally exfoliated primary teeth were selected and randomly assigned into four groups: Control Group – teeth receiving only enamel standardization treatment with polishing disc to reduce natural enamel; Group I – teeth receiving superficial enamel standardization treatment followed by polishing with a mixture of water and pumice; Group II – teeth receiving enamel standardization treatment followed by prophylaxis with paste (Herjos-F, Vigodent S/A Indústria e Comércio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil); and Group III – teeth receiving enamel standardization treatment followed by sodium bicarbonate spray (Profi II Ceramic, Dabi Atlante Indústrias Médico-Odontológicas Ltda, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil). All the procedures were performed by the same operator and the samples were rinsed and stored in distilled water. Comparative assessment of the enamel surface roughness between experimental groups and control group was performed by using a surface profilometer (Mitutoyo SJ400). Results: The results of this study were statistically analysed by using Minitab statistical software (version 17.1.0, 2013). The use of pumice and water led to significantly rougher surfaces than in other groups (i.e. Group I: 1.22 Ra; Group II 0.38 Ra; Group III: 1.01 Ra). Conclusion: Based on this study, one can conclude that use of pumice and water resulted in increased enamel surface roughness in comparison to the surface treatment with bicarbonate spray and prophylaxis paste.en
dc.description.affiliationSão Paulo State University (Unesp) Institute of Science and Technology São José dos Campos Department of Social and Pediatric
dc.description.affiliationSão Paulo University (USP) School of Medicine
dc.description.affiliationUnespSão Paulo State University (Unesp) Institute of Science and Technology São José dos Campos Department of Social and Pediatric
dc.format.extent335-340
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.14295/bds.2018.v21i3.1567
dc.identifier.citationBrazilian Dental Science, v. 21, n. 3, p. 335-340, 2018.
dc.identifier.doi10.14295/bds.2018.v21i3.1567
dc.identifier.issn2178-6011
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85052321981
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/176756
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofBrazilian Dental Science
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectDental enamel
dc.subjectDental prophylaxis
dc.subjectEnamel roughness
dc.subjectJet abrasive system
dc.subjectPrimary teeth
dc.titleComparative analysis of different prophylactic methods for roughness of primary tooth enamelen
dc.titleAnálise comparativa de diferentes métodos profiláticos sobre a rugosidade do esmalte em dentes decíduospt
dc.typeArtigo

Arquivos