Efeito de diferentes sistemas de cimentação e protocolos de envelhecimento sobre a resistência de união push-out após cimentação de pino de fibra de vidro
Carregando...
Data
2022-03-04
Autores
Nogueira, Caio Henrique de Paula
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o efeito de diferentes sistemas de cimentação (cimentos de ionômero de vidro (GC Gold Label Luting & Lining (GC) e Relyx Luting 2(RL)) e cimentos resinosos autoadesivos (MaxCem Elite (MC) e Relyx U200 (RU)), formação de tags e de protocolos de envelhecimento (imediato, 6 meses e 12 meses) sobre a resistência de união push-out após cimentação de pinos de fibra de vidro. Cento e vinte incisivos bovinos foram tratados endodonticamente. O espaço para pino foi preparado e as raízes foram randomicamente divididas em 4 grupos (N = 30), de acordo com o sistema de cimentação: GC; RL; MC; RU. Os espécimes de cada um dos protocolos foram subdivididos em 3 subgrupos (N = 10), de acordo com o período de avaliação. Depois disso, as amostras dos terços cervical, médio e apical foram preparadas e analisadas usando teste de resistência de união push-out e microscopia confocal a laser (MCL). Os dados obtidos na avaliação da resistência de união e extensão de formação de tags foram submetidos ao teste de Shapiro-Wilk, para averiguar a homocedasticidade dos dados. Em seguida, foram submetidos aos testes de ANOVA one way e Tukey, como post hoc, com nível de significância de 5 % (p = 0,05). A análise do padrão de fratura foi apresentada sob a forma de frequência. Para o teste de push-out, imediata e de 6 meses, não houve diferença entre os cimentos GC, RU e MC nos terços cervical e médio (p > 0.05). No entanto, a resistência de união foi maior que RL (p < 0.05). No terço apical, GC e RU exibiram resistências similares (p > 0.05) e maior em comparação aos outros grupos (p > 0.05). Na análise de 12 meses, GC exibiu a maior resistência de união (p < 0.05) independentemente do terço avaliado. Por outro lado, MC e RL demonstraram os menores valores de resistência de união (p < 0.05). O padrão de falha coesiva foi o mais frequente, independentemente do período de análise, sistema de cimentação e terço do espaço para pino. Nos períodos de imediato e 6 meses, o cimento de ionômero de vidro (GC) demonstra similar resistência de união ao cimento resinoso autoadesivo (RU). Entretanto, após 12 meses demonstra o maior valor de resistência de união, em relação aos demais cimentos resinosos autoadesivos (MC e RU) e de ionômero de vidro modificado com resina (RL). Contudo, o cimento de ionômero de vidro quimicamente ativado pode ser uma alternativa clínica promissora para cimentação de pino de fibra de vidro.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different cementation systems (glass ionomer cements (GC Gold Label Luting & Lining (GC) and Relyx Luting 2(RL)) and self-adhesive resin cements (MaxCem Elite (MC) and Relyx U200 (RU)), tag formation and aging protocols (immediate, 6 months and 12 months) on the push-out bond strength after cementing fiberglass posts. One hundred and twenty bovine incisors were endodontically treated. The post space was prepared, and the roots were randomly divided into 4 groups (N = 30) according to the cementation system: GC; RL; MC; RU. The specimens from each protocol were subdivided into 3 subgroups (N = 10), according to the evaluation period. Thereafter, specimens from the cervical, middle, and apical thirds were prepared and analyzed using push-out bond strength testing and confocal laser microscopy (CLM). The data obtained in the evaluation of bond strength and tag formation extension were submitted to the Shapiro-Wilk test, to verify the homoscedasticity of the data. Then, they were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey test, as post hoc, with a significance level of 5% (p = 0.05). The analysis of the fracture pattern was presented in the form of frequency. For the push-out test, immediate and 6 months, there was no difference between cements GC, RU, and MC in the cervical and middle thirds (p > 0.05). However, the bond strength was greater than RL (p < 0.05). In the apical third, GC and RU exhibited similar (p > 0.05) and greater resistance compared to the other groups (p > 0.05). In the 12-month analysis, GC exhibited the highest bond strength (p < 0.05) regardless of the third evaluated. On the other hand, MC and RL showed the lowest bond strength values (p < 0.05). The cohesive failure pattern was the most frequent, regardless of the analysis period, cementation system and third of the post space. In the immediate and 6-month periods, the glass ionomer cement (GC) demonstrates similar bond strength to the selfadhesive resin cement (RU). However, after 12 months it demonstrates the highest bond strength value compared to other self-adhesive resin cements (MC and RU) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RL). However, chemically activated glass ionomer cement may be a promising clinical alternative for glass fiber post cementation.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different cementation systems (glass ionomer cements (GC Gold Label Luting & Lining (GC) and Relyx Luting 2(RL)) and self-adhesive resin cements (MaxCem Elite (MC) and Relyx U200 (RU)), tag formation and aging protocols (immediate, 6 months and 12 months) on the push-out bond strength after cementing fiberglass posts. One hundred and twenty bovine incisors were endodontically treated. The post space was prepared, and the roots were randomly divided into 4 groups (N = 30) according to the cementation system: GC; RL; MC; RU. The specimens from each protocol were subdivided into 3 subgroups (N = 10), according to the evaluation period. Thereafter, specimens from the cervical, middle, and apical thirds were prepared and analyzed using push-out bond strength testing and confocal laser microscopy (CLM). The data obtained in the evaluation of bond strength and tag formation extension were submitted to the Shapiro-Wilk test, to verify the homoscedasticity of the data. Then, they were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey test, as post hoc, with a significance level of 5% (p = 0.05). The analysis of the fracture pattern was presented in the form of frequency. For the push-out test, immediate and 6 months, there was no difference between cements GC, RU, and MC in the cervical and middle thirds (p > 0.05). However, the bond strength was greater than RL (p < 0.05). In the apical third, GC and RU exhibited similar (p > 0.05) and greater resistance compared to the other groups (p > 0.05). In the 12-month analysis, GC exhibited the highest bond strength (p < 0.05) regardless of the third evaluated. On the other hand, MC and RL showed the lowest bond strength values (p < 0.05). The cohesive failure pattern was the most frequent, regardless of the analysis period, cementation system and third of the post space. In the immediate and 6-month periods, the glass ionomer cement (GC) demonstrates similar bond strength to the selfadhesive resin cement (RU). However, after 12 months it demonstrates the highest bond strength value compared to other self-adhesive resin cements (MC and RU) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RL). However, chemically activated glass ionomer cement may be a promising clinical alternative for glass fiber post cementation.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Cimentos dentários, Adesivos dentinários, Dentina, Dental cements, Dentin adhesives, Dentin