Avaliação da Ocorrência da Fenda Marginal em Restaurações de Resina Composta
Carregando...
Arquivos
Data
2018-12-03
Autores
Araújo, Carlos Ariel Rodrigues de [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O objetivo do estudo foi avaliar a ocorrência da fenda marginal em restaurações de resinas flow, com e sem ciclagem termomecânica. Utilizou-se neste estudo 60 incisivos bovinos. Os preparos cavitários foram padronizados por meio de um dispositivo que proporcionou preparos uniformizados realizados com uma ponta diamantada (3286P-KG Sorensen). O sistema adesivo Single Bond Universal (3M-ESPE) foi aplicado e os compósitos foram utilizados: FILTEK BULK FILL FLOW (3M-ESPE), ADMIRA FUSION FLOW (VOCO) e FILTEK Z350 XT FLOW (3M ESPE). Metade dos espécimes foram submetidos à ciclagem termomecânica. Foi realizada a avaliação da área da fenda marginal por meio da medição no microscópio óptico DISCOVERY V20 (ZEISS). Os valores de média e desvio-padrão de área da fenda marginal (μm²) obtidos nos 6 grupos estudados foram: FBNC = 332,75 ± 214,76; AFNC = 376,20 ± 196,04; FZNC = 861,12 ± 393,68; FBC = 951,68 ± 273,67; AFC = 598,82 ± 392,60; FZC = 1157,59 ± 563,76. O teste ANOVA dois fatores apresentou o valor de p< 0,05 para ambos os fatores, o teste de Tukey a 5% mostrou média e desvio padrão (μm²) para o fator envelhecimento: com ciclagem = 902,70 ± 455,37ª; sem ciclagem = 523,35 ± 345,28ᵇ, e para o fator resina composta mostrou média e desvio padrão (μm²): FZ = 1009,36 ± 466,43ª; FB = 642,21 ± 399,27ªᵇ; AF = 487,51 ± 307,80ᵇ. A ciclagem termomecânica resultou no aumento da área da fenda marginal, a resina AF apresentou resultados superiores em relação á FZ. A resina FB não apresentou diferenças em relação as demais.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of marginal gap of different restorations, using different flowable composite, with and without thermo mechanical cycling. 60 incisive bovine tooth were used. The cavity preparations were standardized by means of a device that provided uniform preparations made with a diamond bur (3286P, KG Sorensen, Barueri, SP, Brazil). Universal Single Bond (3M) adhesive system was applied and the composites were applied: FILTEK BULK FILL FLOW (3M), ADMIRA FUSION FLOW (VOCO) e FILTEK Z350 XT FLOW (3M). Half of each group were submitted to thermo cycling. Evaluation of marginal gap were done by optical microscopy DISCOVERY V20 (ZEISS). The mean and standard deviation values of the marginal gap area (μm²) obtained in the 6 groups studied were: FBNC = 332,75 ± 214,76; AFNC = 376,20 ± 196,04; FZNC = 861,12 ± 393,68; FBC = 951,68 ± 273,67; AFC = 598,82 ± 392,60; FZC = 1157,59 ± 563,76. The two-way ANOVA presented p lesser than 0.05 for both factors, the Tukey test at 5% showed mean and standard deviation (μm²) for termo mechanical cycling factor: Cycling = 902,70 ± 455,37ª; No cycling = 523,35 ± 345,28ᵇ and for composite resin factor: FZ = 1009,36 ± 466,43ª; FB = 642,21 ± 399,27ªᵇ; AF = 487,51 ± 307,80ᵇ. The thermomechanical cycling resulted in an increase in the marginal gap area; and the composite AF presented statistically superior results in relation to FZ. The FB composite showed no differences in relation to the other composites.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of marginal gap of different restorations, using different flowable composite, with and without thermo mechanical cycling. 60 incisive bovine tooth were used. The cavity preparations were standardized by means of a device that provided uniform preparations made with a diamond bur (3286P, KG Sorensen, Barueri, SP, Brazil). Universal Single Bond (3M) adhesive system was applied and the composites were applied: FILTEK BULK FILL FLOW (3M), ADMIRA FUSION FLOW (VOCO) e FILTEK Z350 XT FLOW (3M). Half of each group were submitted to thermo cycling. Evaluation of marginal gap were done by optical microscopy DISCOVERY V20 (ZEISS). The mean and standard deviation values of the marginal gap area (μm²) obtained in the 6 groups studied were: FBNC = 332,75 ± 214,76; AFNC = 376,20 ± 196,04; FZNC = 861,12 ± 393,68; FBC = 951,68 ± 273,67; AFC = 598,82 ± 392,60; FZC = 1157,59 ± 563,76. The two-way ANOVA presented p lesser than 0.05 for both factors, the Tukey test at 5% showed mean and standard deviation (μm²) for termo mechanical cycling factor: Cycling = 902,70 ± 455,37ª; No cycling = 523,35 ± 345,28ᵇ and for composite resin factor: FZ = 1009,36 ± 466,43ª; FB = 642,21 ± 399,27ªᵇ; AF = 487,51 ± 307,80ᵇ. The thermomechanical cycling resulted in an increase in the marginal gap area; and the composite AF presented statistically superior results in relation to FZ. The FB composite showed no differences in relation to the other composites.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Fenda Marginal, Resina Composta, Marginal Gap, Composite Resin