Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
INTRODUÇÃO: A superfície das resinas compostas deve ser lisa para prevenir a acumulação
de placa bacteriana, diminuindo a possibilidade de formação de cárie secundária,
descoloração, inflamação gengival e desgaste oclusal.
OBJECTIVO: Avaliar a rugosidade superficial de duas resinas compostas de uso direto,
sujeitas a dois métodos de polimento distintos.
MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Dezoito dentes anteriores humanos foram preparados com uma
cavidade no terço incisal e restaurados aleatoriamente com duas resinas compostas
(Heliomolar®, Ivoclar Vivadent Inc., Principado do Liechtenstein - micropartículada; Enamel
Plus HRi®, Micerium S.p.A., Itália - nanohíbrida). Cada espécie de ambos os grupos recebeu
um de três tipos de tratamento superficial: sem tratamento (grupo controlo - matriz de
poliéster), acabamento e polimento com sistema Sof-LexTM, acabamento e polimento com
sistema Enamel Plus SHINY®. A rugosidade superficial foi determinada por rugosimetria. Os
resultados foram analisados estatisticamente com um nível de significância de 0.05.
RESULTADOS: Para todos os materiais testados, as menores rugosidades foram obtidas com
a utilização da matriz de poliéster no grupo controlo (p<0.05). O sistema de acabamento e
polimento Enamel Plus SHINY® produziu rugosidades inferiores ao sistema Sof-LexTM
(p<0.05). Ambos os sistemas de polimento produziram rugosidades significativamente mais
baixas quando utilizados na resina composta Enamel Plus HRi® comparativamente à sua
utilização com o compósito Heliomolar®. Exceptuando o grupo controlo, os níveis de
rugosidade mais baixos foram observados com a utilização do polimento Enamel Plus
SHINY® no compósito Enamel Plus HRi®.
CONCLUSÃO: O sistema de pastas Enamel Plus SHINY® parece produzir rugosidades
superficiais mais baixas que os discos Sof-LexTM, sendo este resultado mais evidente no
compósito Enamel Plus HRi®.
INTRODUCTION: Resin composites should exhibit a smooth surface in order to decrease plaque accumulation, therefore preventing secondary caries, discoloration, gingival inflammation and wear of opposing teeth. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the surface roughness of two direct use resin composites, after polishing with two different polishing systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen anterior human teeth were prepared with a cavity on the incisal third and restored randomly with two resin composites (Heliomolar®, Ivoclar Vivadent Inc., Principality of Liechtenstein - microfilled; Enamel Plus HRi®, Micerium S.p.A., Italy - nanohybrid). Each specimen of both grups recieved one of the three following surface treatments: no treatment (control group – polyester matrix), finishing and polishing with Sof-LexTM system and finishing and polishing with Enamel Plus SHINY® system. Surface roughness was determined by profilometry. Results were analyzed at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Among all materials, the smoothest surfaces were obtained under a matrix strip in the control group (p<0.05). The finishing and polishing system Enamel Plus SHINY® revealed lower roughness values comparing with the Sof-LexTM system. Both finishing and polishing systems showed lower surface roughness when used in Enamel Plus HRi® resin composite than when used with Heliomolar® resin composite (p<0.05). Apart from the control group, the lowest surface roughness values were obtained using the Enamel Plus SHINY® system for finishing and polishing the Enamel Plus HRi® resin composite. CONCLUSION: The paste-based system Enamel Plus SHINY® appears to result in lower surface roughness values than the Sof-LexTM disc system, and this finding is more pronounced on the Enamel Plus HRi® resin composite.
INTRODUCTION: Resin composites should exhibit a smooth surface in order to decrease plaque accumulation, therefore preventing secondary caries, discoloration, gingival inflammation and wear of opposing teeth. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the surface roughness of two direct use resin composites, after polishing with two different polishing systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen anterior human teeth were prepared with a cavity on the incisal third and restored randomly with two resin composites (Heliomolar®, Ivoclar Vivadent Inc., Principality of Liechtenstein - microfilled; Enamel Plus HRi®, Micerium S.p.A., Italy - nanohybrid). Each specimen of both grups recieved one of the three following surface treatments: no treatment (control group – polyester matrix), finishing and polishing with Sof-LexTM system and finishing and polishing with Enamel Plus SHINY® system. Surface roughness was determined by profilometry. Results were analyzed at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Among all materials, the smoothest surfaces were obtained under a matrix strip in the control group (p<0.05). The finishing and polishing system Enamel Plus SHINY® revealed lower roughness values comparing with the Sof-LexTM system. Both finishing and polishing systems showed lower surface roughness when used in Enamel Plus HRi® resin composite than when used with Heliomolar® resin composite (p<0.05). Apart from the control group, the lowest surface roughness values were obtained using the Enamel Plus SHINY® system for finishing and polishing the Enamel Plus HRi® resin composite. CONCLUSION: The paste-based system Enamel Plus SHINY® appears to result in lower surface roughness values than the Sof-LexTM disc system, and this finding is more pronounced on the Enamel Plus HRi® resin composite.
Description
Keywords
Medicina dentária Rugosidade superficial Resina composta Dentistry Surface roughness Resin composite