Influência de soluções de clorexidina e de própolis e da simulação de pressão pulpar na resistência de união dentinária
Carregando...
Arquivos
Data
2016-02-17
Autores
Perote, Letícia Carvalho Coutinho Costa [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar a influência de soluções de clorexidina e de própolis e da simulação de pressão pulpar na resistência de união entre resina e dentina. Para isto, foram obtidos segmentos coronários de 120 dentes humanos. Metade das amostras foram conectadas a um dispositivo de simulação de pressão pulpar, cuja altura foi ajustada para 15 cm de água. Foi realizado condicionamento com ácido fosfórico 37% por 15 s, lavagem e secagem com papel absorvente. Em seguida, foram divididas em 3 grupos, de acordo com a solução aplicada por 30 s: GC(Grupo Controle – nenhuma solução), CLX (Digluconato de Clorexidina 0,2%), PA (Extrato de própolis aquoso). Aplicou-se o adesivo (Single Bond Universal) e resina composta (Filtek Z250) em todos as amostras. Os grupos foram subdivididos de acordo com o tipo de envelhecimento: I (Corte Imediato), C (15000 ciclos térmicos). As amostras foram cortadas em palitos e submetidas ao teste de microtração. Os dados obtidos de resistência de união (MPa) foram submetidos ao teste de ANOVA 3 fatores. Para o fator Solução, não foi encontrada diferença estatisticamente significante entre os grupos (p=0,46), mas sim para os fatores Pressão Pulpar (p=0,00) e Envelhecimento (p=0,00), além das interações entre os fatores Solução e Pressão Pulpar (p= 0,00), Pressão Pulpar e Envelhecimento (p=0,00) e entre os três fatores (p=0,03). Os resultados do teste de Tukey para o fator Pressão Pulpar foram: CPP (com pressão pulpar): 29,19a, SPP (sem pressão pulpar): 32,98b; e para o fator Envelhecimento foram: C (ciclados): 28,12a, I (imediato): 34,05b. Concluiu-se que as soluções de clorexidina e de própolis não interferiram na resistência de união; e que a simulação de pressão pulpar e a termociclagem diminuíram os valores de resistência de união da resina à dentina.
This study aimed to assess the influence of chlorhexidine and propolis solutions and simulated pulpal pressure on the bond strength between resin and dentin. To do so, crown segments of 120 human teeth were obtained. Half of the samples were connected to a pulp pressure simulation device, adjusted to 15 cm H2O. Conditioning was accomplished with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds, washing and drying with absorbing paper. Then, samples were split into 3 groups, according to the solution applied for 30 s: GC (Control group – no solution), CLX (Chlorhexidine digluconate 0.2%), PA (Aqueous propolis extract). Single Bond Universal adhesive and composite resin (Filtek Z250) were applied in all samples. Groups were subdivided according to the aging process: I (Immediate cut) and T (15000 thermal cycles). Samples were cut into beams and went through microtensile bonding tests. Bond strength data (MPa) were analyzed by three-way ANOVA. For the factor Solution, there was no statistically significant difference among the groups (p = 0.46), but was found difference for the factors Pulpal Pressure (p=0.00), Aging (p=0.00), and interaction between Solution and Pulpal Pressure (p=0.00), Pulpal Pressure and Aging (p=0.00) and between the 3 factors (p=0.03). The results from Tukey’s test for Pulpal Pressure factor were: SPP (simulated pulpal pressure): 29,19a, NPP (no pulpal pressure): 32,98b; and for the factor Aging were: T (thermal cycling): 28,12a, I (immediate): 34,05b. It was concluded that chlorhexidine and propolis solutions have not interfered in the bond strength; but simulated pulpal pressure and termal cycling reduced the dentin bond strength.
This study aimed to assess the influence of chlorhexidine and propolis solutions and simulated pulpal pressure on the bond strength between resin and dentin. To do so, crown segments of 120 human teeth were obtained. Half of the samples were connected to a pulp pressure simulation device, adjusted to 15 cm H2O. Conditioning was accomplished with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds, washing and drying with absorbing paper. Then, samples were split into 3 groups, according to the solution applied for 30 s: GC (Control group – no solution), CLX (Chlorhexidine digluconate 0.2%), PA (Aqueous propolis extract). Single Bond Universal adhesive and composite resin (Filtek Z250) were applied in all samples. Groups were subdivided according to the aging process: I (Immediate cut) and T (15000 thermal cycles). Samples were cut into beams and went through microtensile bonding tests. Bond strength data (MPa) were analyzed by three-way ANOVA. For the factor Solution, there was no statistically significant difference among the groups (p = 0.46), but was found difference for the factors Pulpal Pressure (p=0.00), Aging (p=0.00), and interaction between Solution and Pulpal Pressure (p=0.00), Pulpal Pressure and Aging (p=0.00) and between the 3 factors (p=0.03). The results from Tukey’s test for Pulpal Pressure factor were: SPP (simulated pulpal pressure): 29,19a, NPP (no pulpal pressure): 32,98b; and for the factor Aging were: T (thermal cycling): 28,12a, I (immediate): 34,05b. It was concluded that chlorhexidine and propolis solutions have not interfered in the bond strength; but simulated pulpal pressure and termal cycling reduced the dentin bond strength.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Resina composta, Metaloproteinases da matriz, Pressão pulpar, Resistência à tração, Composite resin, Matrix metalloproteinase, Pulpal pressure, Tensile strength