dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-30T18:31:21Z
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-20T13:44:52Z
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-05T14:09:40Z
dc.date.available2013-09-30T18:31:21Z
dc.date.available2014-05-20T13:44:52Z
dc.date.available2022-10-05T14:09:40Z
dc.date.created2013-09-30T18:31:21Z
dc.date.created2014-05-20T13:44:52Z
dc.date.issued2008-09-01
dc.identifierPediatric Dentistry. Chicago: Amer Acad Pediatric Dentistry, v. 30, n. 5, p. 420-423, 2008.
dc.identifier0164-1263
dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/15744
dc.identifierWOS:000207663600008
dc.identifier8672541377335694
dc.identifier0000-0003-2386-842X
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/3890892
dc.description.abstractPurpose: This study's purpose was to assess the amount of dental enamel loss on primary incisors after manual or mechanical microabrasion with a phosphoric acid/pumice poste. Methods: Ten exfoliated primary maxillary incisors were bisected faciolingually and the resulting 20 halves were randomly assigned to 2 groups: group 1 (N=10) manual technique (plastic spatula); and group 2 (N=10) mechanical technique (rubber cup attached to a low-speed handpiece). Microabrasion was performed on the buccal surface using an abrasive paste prepared with 37% phosphoric acid and pumice. Ten 20-second applications alternated with 20-second risings were performed in each group. Enamel thickness measurements made under stereomi-croscopy before and after microabrasion were analyzed statistically by analysis of variance and pairwise t test. Results: There was a statistically significant difference (P=.003) between the manual and mechanical techniques. The mechanical technique produced a mean enamel loss of 274.16 mu m (66% of total enamel thickness), while the mean enamel loss with the manual technique was 152.59 mu m (39% of total enamel thickness). Conclusion: Manual microabrasion using a plastic spatula removed less enamel, but was sufficient to eliminate most superficial stains and defects, and may be a viable option for the microabrasive technique on primary teeth. (Pediatr Dent 2008;30:420-3) Received March 15, 2007 / Lost Revision September 19, 2007 / Revision Accepted October 19, 2007
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherAmer Acad Pediatric Dentistry
dc.relationPediatric Dentistry
dc.relation0,630
dc.rightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectMICROABRASION
dc.subjectDENTAL ENAMEL
dc.subjectPRIMARY TEETH
dc.titlePrimary Tooth Enamel Loss After Manual and Mechanical Microabrasion
dc.typeArtigo


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución