Effect Of Restorative System And Thermal Cycling On The Tooth-restoration Interface - Oct Evaluation

dc.creatorSampaio
dc.creatorCS; Rodrigues
dc.creatorRV; Souza
dc.creatorEJ; Freitas
dc.creatorAZ; Ambrosano
dc.creatorGMB; Pascon
dc.creatorFM; Puppin-Rontani
dc.creatorRM
dc.date2016
dc.date2016-12-06T18:30:18Z
dc.date2016-12-06T18:30:18Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-29T02:02:52Z
dc.date.available2018-03-29T02:02:52Z
dc.identifier1559-2863
dc.identifierOperative Dentistry. OPERATIVE DENTISTRY INC, n. 41, n. 2, p. 162 - 170.
dc.identifier0361-7734
dc.identifierWOS:000376158200006
dc.identifier10.2341/14-344-L
dc.identifierhttp://www.jopdentonline.org/doi/10.2341/14-344-L?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/320006
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1310772
dc.descriptionThe present study evaluated the tooth/noncarious cervical lesion restoration interface when using different adhesive systems and resin composites, submitted to thermal cycling (TC), using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Noncarious cervical lesion (NCCL) preparations (0.7 mm depth 3 2 mm diameter) were performed on 60 human third molars and randomly divided into six groups, according to the adhesive system and resin composite used: group 1 = Adper Single Bond 2 (SB2) + Aelite LS Posterior (AP); group 2 =SB2 + Venus Diamond (VD); group =SB2 + Filtek Z250XT (Z250); group 4 = Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) + AP; group 5 =CSE + VD; group 6 =CSE + Z250. Selective enamel etching was performed for 30 seconds on groups 4, 5, and 6, while groups 1, 2, and 3 were etched for 30 seconds in enamel and 15 seconds in dentin. All groups were evaluated using OCT before and after TC (n=10). Images were analyzed using Image J software; enamel and dentin margins were separately evaluated. Data from OCT were submitted to PROC MIXED for repeated measurements and Tukey Kramer test (alpha = 0.05). No marginal gaps were observed in etched enamel, either before or after TC, for all adhesive and resin composite systems. A significant interaction was found between adhesive system and TC for the dentin groups; after TC, restorations with CSE showed smaller gaps at the dentin/restoration interface compared with SB2 for all resin composites. Increased gap percentages were noticed after TC compared with the gaps before TC for all groups. In conclusion, TC affected marginal integrity only in dentin margins, whereas etched enamel margins remained stable even after TC. Dentin margins restored with CSE adhesive system showed better marginal adaptation than those restored with SB2. Resin composites did not influence marginal integrity of NCCL restorations.
dc.description41
dc.description
dc.description162
dc.description170
dc.description
dc.description
dc.description
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherOPERATIVE DENTISTRY INC
dc.publisherINDIANAPOLIS
dc.relationOperative Dentistry
dc.rightsaberto
dc.sourceWOS
dc.subjectOptical Coherence Tomography
dc.subjectSelf-etch Adhesives
dc.subjectBond Strength
dc.subjectComposite Restorations
dc.subjectMarginal Adaptation
dc.subjectOperative Sensitivity
dc.subjectDentin
dc.subjectMicroleakage
dc.subjectEnamel
dc.subjectDegradation
dc.titleEffect Of Restorative System And Thermal Cycling On The Tooth-restoration Interface - Oct Evaluation
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución