FO - Faculdade de Odontologia
URI Permanente desta comunidade
Navegar
Navegando FO - Faculdade de Odontologia por Autor "Carvalho, Andreia Assis"
Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
Resultados por página
Opções de Ordenação
Item Sorção, solubilidade e resistência flexural biaxial de uma resina composta em função do tipo de fonte de luz e técnicas de polimerização(Universidade Federal de Goiás, 2010-02-18) Carvalho, Andreia Assis; Lopes, Lawrence Gonzaga; http://lattes.cnpq.br/8698234314492960The use of composite resin (CR) in dental restorations is a common practice, however, in the oral environment, these polymers are subject to hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects, and strength of occlusion and mastication. This study aimed to evaluate in vitro the influence of different light sources, energy densities and polymerization techniques on sorption, solubility and biaxial flexural strength (RFB) of an RC. 240 specimens were fabricated (2mm x 8 MMO) RC (Esthet-X), shade A2. Two groups were obtained, depending on the instrument used: halogen lamp and light emitting diodes (LED) and subdivided according to the energy density (16 J/cm2 and 20 J/cm2), polymerization (conventional pulse I stopped and interrupted pulse II) and type of permeant (water and ethanol 75%). The methodology for the development of sorption and solubility test was based on ISO 4049:2000. Then the specimens were tested for RFB (ASTM F 394-78). We used ANOVA and Tukey test for parametric data and Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test for data nãoparamétricos (? = 0.05). It was observed that in general there was no statistically significant differences when comparing the sources of light and the polymerization techniques (p> 0.05). Energy density of 16 J/cm2 and pulse interrupted technique II was possible to observe that the LED generated higher values of sorption and solubility of the halogen light and, in the conventional technique, lower RFB (p> 0.05 ). The ethanol produced higher values of sorption and solubility, and lower RFB compared with water. In general, light sources, energy densities and polymerization techniques did not influence the values of sorption, solubility and RFBItem Comportamento clínico de restaurações classe I e II de resina composta realizadas com sistema adesivo universal em diferentes protocolos de aplicação - estudo clínico randomizado(Universidade Federal de Goiás, 2018-04-20) Carvalho, Andreia Assis; Lopes, Lawrence Gonzaga; http://lattes.cnpq.br/8698234314492960; Lopes, Lawrence Gonzaga; http://lattes.cnpq.br/8698234314492960; Veríssimo, Crisnicaw; Silva, Maria Alves Garcia Santos; Reges, Rogério Vieira; Torres, Érica Miranda deThe objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical behavior of direct composite resin restorations (Class I and II), varying the universal dental adhesive application protocol, using the FDI and USPHS evaluation criteria. It was a randomized, double-blind, mouth5 divided, and sample-based randomized controlled trial. The selected participants should have a Class I and/or II restorative need for at least three dental elements or multiples of three resulting from the presence of carious lesions and/or unsatisfactory restorations. Three protocols for the application of the Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE) were tested (n=150): CAT (control) = etch-and-rinse + adhesive (n=50); CASE = selective etching in enamel + adhesive (n=50) and Ac = self-etch (n=50). The three groups were similarly restored using Filtek Z350 XT composite resin (3M ESPE) by means of the oblique incremental technique. Clinical evaluations were performed by two evaluators at the baseline (T1) and after 15.8 (±2.7 months) (T2), using the FDI and USPHS criteria. Friedman (between groups at different times), Wilcoxon (between times for each group) and McNemar (between FDI and USPHS criteria) were performed, α=0.05. The Kappa test showed excellent inter-examiner agreement (κ>0.80). For the "superficial staining" property, a statistically significant difference was observed in T2 between the CAT and CASE groups (p=0.01) with higher values for CAT and, when T1 and T2 were compared for each group, there were differences in the CAT group (p=0.001) and in the Ac group (p=0.007) for T2. For the other comparisons between groups and times there were no statistically significant differences, even when the FDI and USPHS criteria were compared (p≥0.05). It can be concluded that the different protocols of universal adhesive application (CAT, CASE and Ac) did not influence the clinical behavior of the restorations evaluated in 15.8 months of evaluation. The FDI and USPHS criteria provided comparable results.