Avaliação das propriedades físicas e biológicas de materiais restauradores bioativos
Carregando...
Data
2019-01-07
Autores
Campello de Souza, Maria Luíza Aun de Barros Lima Rocha [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
Materiais restauradores denominados bioativos se propõem a auxiliar no equilíbrio biodinâmico entre os dentes e a saliva. O objetivo deste estudo, portanto, foi avaliar quatro desses materiais quanto à: adesão bacteriana e microdureza do esmalte adjacente a restaurações realizadas com esses materiais quando submetidos ao desafio cariogênico. Para a adesão bacteriana foram confeccionados 10 espécimes padronizados de cada material restaurador que foram expostos em uma cepa padrão de Streptococcus mutans (UA 159). Depois da incubação foi determinado o número de unidades formadoras de colônia (UFC/mL). Para a avaliação da microdureza foram utilizados 91 incisivos bovinos distribuídos em 7 grupos (n=13): 2 grupos controle; ES, esmalte hígido sem ciclagem de pH e EC, esmalte com ciclagem de pH e 5 grupos com preparos padronizados de classe V na superfície do esmalte vestibular, restaurados com dos materiais selecionados: AB, ActivaBioactive (Pulpdent); BB, Beautifil Bulk (Shofu); CN, Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent); EF, Equia Forte (GC) e FB, Filtek Bulk Fill (3M ESPE). A microdureza das superfícies do esmalte foi medida em um microdurômetro acoplado a um software para análise de imagem. Os resultados foram submetidos aos testes ANOVA e Tukey (5%). Para a adesão bacteriana os resultados demonstraram que não houve diferença estatística entre a resina composta convencional Filtek Bulk (10,58 ± 0,04) e os materiais bioativos Activa Bioactive (10,19 ± 0,08) e Cention N (10,16 ± 0,12). No entanto, pôde ser observado que esses materiais apresentaram diferença significativa com relação aos materiais Beautifil Bulk (9,66 ± 0,09) e Equia Forte (7,75 ± 1,27); que apresentou a menor adesão bacteriana. A análise dos dados de microdureza mostrou diferença entre tratamento e tempo (p<0,001) e na interação entre esses dois fatores. Os grupos: esmalte ciclado (77,89 ± 45,19) e resina composta Filtek Bulk (121,32 ± 43,53) apresentaram os menores valores de microdureza, seguido do grupo Beautifil Bulk (155,33 ± 57,35), diferindo significativamente dos demais grupos. Os resultados permitiram concluir que os materiais bioativos apresentaram interferência na adesão bacteriana, com a menor adesão proporcionada pelo cimento de ionômero de vidro; e também que, materiais que apresentam em sua composição íons que interagem com a estrutura dental melhoram a microdureza do esmalte adjacente às restaurações.
Bioactive restorative materials are intended to aid the biodynamic balance between teeth and saliva. The objective of this study was to evaluate four of these materials for bacterial adhesion and microhardness of the enamel adjacent to restorations with them, when submitted to cariogenic challenge. For bacterial adhesion, 10 standardized specimens of each restorative material were prepared and exposed in a standard strain of Streptococcus mutans (UA 159). After incubation, the number of colony forming units (CFU / mL) was determined. To evaluate the microhardness, 91 bovine incisors were distributed in 7 groups (n = 13): 2 control groups; ES, enamel without pH cycling and EC, enamel with pH cycling and 5 groups that received standardized class V preparations on the buccal enamel surface restored with one of the selected materials: AB, ActivaBioactive (Pulpdent); BB, Beautifil Bulk (Shofu); CN, Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent); EF, Equia Forte (GC) and, FB, Filtek Bulk Fill (3M ESPE). Enamel surfaces microhardness was measured in a microdurometer coupled to software for image analysis. The results were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey tests (5%). For bacterial adhesion the results showed that there was no statistical difference between the composite resin Filtek Bulk (10,58 ± 0,04) and the bioactive materials, Activa Bioactive (10,19 ± 0,08) and Cention N (10,16 ± 0,12). However, it was observed that these materials presented significant difference in relation to Beautifil Bulk (9,66 ± 0,09) and Equia Forte (7,75 ± 1,27); which presented the lowest bacterial adhesion. The analysis of microhardness data showed a difference between treatment and time (p <0.001) and in the interaction of these two factors. The groups: pH cycled enamel (77,89 ± 45,19) and Filtek Bulk resin (121,32 ± 43,53) presented the lowest microhardness values, followed by the Beautifil Bulk group (155,33 ± 57,35), differing significantly from the other groups. The results allowed to conclude that the bioactive materials interfered in the bacterial adhesion, with the lower adhesion provided by the glass ionomer cement; and also that, materials with ions that interact with the dental structure in their composition improve the microhardness of the enamel adjacent to the restorations.
Bioactive restorative materials are intended to aid the biodynamic balance between teeth and saliva. The objective of this study was to evaluate four of these materials for bacterial adhesion and microhardness of the enamel adjacent to restorations with them, when submitted to cariogenic challenge. For bacterial adhesion, 10 standardized specimens of each restorative material were prepared and exposed in a standard strain of Streptococcus mutans (UA 159). After incubation, the number of colony forming units (CFU / mL) was determined. To evaluate the microhardness, 91 bovine incisors were distributed in 7 groups (n = 13): 2 control groups; ES, enamel without pH cycling and EC, enamel with pH cycling and 5 groups that received standardized class V preparations on the buccal enamel surface restored with one of the selected materials: AB, ActivaBioactive (Pulpdent); BB, Beautifil Bulk (Shofu); CN, Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent); EF, Equia Forte (GC) and, FB, Filtek Bulk Fill (3M ESPE). Enamel surfaces microhardness was measured in a microdurometer coupled to software for image analysis. The results were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey tests (5%). For bacterial adhesion the results showed that there was no statistical difference between the composite resin Filtek Bulk (10,58 ± 0,04) and the bioactive materials, Activa Bioactive (10,19 ± 0,08) and Cention N (10,16 ± 0,12). However, it was observed that these materials presented significant difference in relation to Beautifil Bulk (9,66 ± 0,09) and Equia Forte (7,75 ± 1,27); which presented the lowest bacterial adhesion. The analysis of microhardness data showed a difference between treatment and time (p <0.001) and in the interaction of these two factors. The groups: pH cycled enamel (77,89 ± 45,19) and Filtek Bulk resin (121,32 ± 43,53) presented the lowest microhardness values, followed by the Beautifil Bulk group (155,33 ± 57,35), differing significantly from the other groups. The results allowed to conclude that the bioactive materials interfered in the bacterial adhesion, with the lower adhesion provided by the glass ionomer cement; and also that, materials with ions that interact with the dental structure in their composition improve the microhardness of the enamel adjacent to the restorations.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Cárie dental, Streptococcus mutans, Materiais dentários, Dental caries, Streptococcus mutans, Dental materials