dc.creatorLopes, Murilo Baena
dc.creatorSaquy, Paulo Cesar
dc.creatorMoura, Sandra Kiss
dc.creatorWang, Linda
dc.creatorGraciano, Fabiana Mezzaroba Ortenzi
dc.creatorCorrer Sobrinho, Lourenço
dc.creatorGonini Júnior, Alcides
dc.date.accessioned2013-11-04T12:32:08Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-04T16:35:49Z
dc.date.available2013-11-04T12:32:08Z
dc.date.available2018-07-04T16:35:49Z
dc.date.created2013-11-04T12:32:08Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifierBraz. Dent. J.,v.23,n.6,p.692-697,2012
dc.identifier0103-6440
dc.identifierhttp://www.producao.usp.br/handle/BDPI/39300
dc.identifier10.1590/S0103-64402012000600011
dc.identifierhttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402012000600011&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
dc.identifierhttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S0103-64402012000600011&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
dc.identifierhttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&pid=S0103-64402012000600011&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1637736
dc.description.abstractThis study evaluated the effectiveness of different sealants applied to a nanofiller composite resin. Forty specimens of Filtek Z-350 were obtained after inserting the material in a 6x3 mm stainless steel mold followed by light activation for 20 s. The groups were divided (n=10) according to the surface treatment applied: Control group (no surface treatment), Fortify, Fortify Plus and Biscover LV. The specimens were subjected to simulated toothbrushing using a 200 g load and 250 strokes/min to simulate 1 week, 1, 3 and 6 months and 1 and 3 years in the mouth, considering 10,000 cycles equivalent to 1 year of toothbrushing. Oral-B soft-bristle-tip toothbrush heads and Colgate Total dentifrice at a 1:2 water-dilution were used. After each simulated time, surface roughness was assessed in random triplicate readings. The data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test at a 95% confidence level. The specimens were observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after each toothbrushing cycle. The control group was not significantly different (p&gt;0.05) from the other groups, except for Fortify Plus (p<0.05), which was rougher. No significant differences (p&gt;0.05) were observed at the 1-month assessment between the experimental and control groups. Fortify and Fortify Plus presented a rougher surface over time, differing from the baseline (p<0.05). Biscover LV did not differ (p&gt;0.05) from the baseline at any time. None of the experimental groups showed a significantly better performance (p&gt;0.05) than the control group at any time. SEM confirmed the differences found during the roughness testing. Surface penetrating sealants did not improve the roughness of nanofiller composite resin.
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherFundação Odontológica de Ribeirão Preto
dc.relationBrazilian Dental Journal
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.subjectsurface sealant
dc.subjecttoothbrushing
dc.subjectroughness
dc.subjectSEM
dc.titleEffect of different surface penetrating sealants on the roughness of a nanofiller composite resin
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución