Análise comparativa da rugosidade superficial de resinas compostas de alta densidade
The success achieved by the use of composite resins in anterior teeth precipitately leads their use in posterior teeth. However, the indiscriminate application of these materials in cavities with several diverse sizes rapidly pointed out their lack of resistance to oclusal and proximal wear. OBJECTI...
| Autores: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2010 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
| Repositorio: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/125873 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://revodonto.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1984-56852010000400007&lng=pt&nrm=iso&tlng=pt http://hdl.handle.net/11449/125873 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Dental polishing Composite resin Dental finishing Polimento dentário Resinas compostas Acabamento dentário |
| Sumario: | The success achieved by the use of composite resins in anterior teeth precipitately leads their use in posterior teeth. However, the indiscriminate application of these materials in cavities with several diverse sizes rapidly pointed out their lack of resistance to oclusal and proximal wear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the surface roughness of composite resin in relation to finishing and polishing technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight experimental groups (n = 15) were divided according to finishing and polishing technique: G1 – Z250TM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G2 – Z250TM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing; G3 – P60TM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G4 – P60TM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing; G5 – Prodigy CondensableTM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G6 – Prodigy CondensableTM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing; G7 – SurefillTM composite resin without surface finishing and polishing; G8 – SurefillTM composite resin plus surface finishing and polishing. Three packable and one microhybrid (control group) composite resin was used. The surface roughness was measured using a profilometer at three points in each sample. The results were evaluated by ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Prodigy CondensableTM composite resin showed the lowest surface roughness, while SurefillTM showed the highest surface roughness. Comparing the resins used, only between P60TM and SurefillTM there were no statistically significant differences (p > 0,05). CONCLUSION: Surface roughness was lower in all types of resin composites surfaces in contact with Mylar matrix strip than in areas submitted to finishing and polishing procedure. |
|---|