| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.13 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Abstract(s)
INTRODUÇÃO: Os ionómeros de vidro são amplamente usados em
Odontopediatria sobretudo em pacientes não colaborantes. A rugosidade da sua
superfície interfere no biofilme que fica aderido e pode conduzir a falhas.
OBJETIVO: Determinar e comparar os valores da rugosidade superficial de
3 ionómeros de vidro sem acabamento ou submetidos a acabamento e
polimento.
MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Para este estudo foram usados: um ionómero
de vidro modificado por resina (Ionolux®, VOCO, Alemanha); um de alta
viscosidade (IonoStar Plus®, VOCO, Alemanha) e um convencional
(Ketac®, 3M, ESPE, EUA). Foram produzidas 60 matrizes cilíndricas (20 x 3
mm), 20 de cada material, que foram divididas em quatro grupos distintos,
segundo a ausência ou aplicação de um tratamento de superfície (sem polimento
– 1, profilático - 2, Enhance® - 3 e Sof-lex® - 4). A rugosidade superficial foi
avaliada por rugosimetria e foi realizada a análise estatística, com um nível de
significância de 0,05.
RESULTADOS: O modelo ANOVA fatorial, envolvendo a análise da
rugosidade entre as variáveis ionómero, técnica de polimento e interação entre
o IV e a técnica de polimento não pode ser realizado. Apenas foi realizada a
análise estatística por técnica de polimento. No Grupo 1 o Ionolux® apresentou
maior rugosidade (p<0.001). No grupo 2 o IonoStar Plus® é o IV que apresenta
menor rugosidade (p<0.001). No grupo 3 o IonoStar Plus® é o IV que apresenta
menor rugosidade (p<0.001). No Grupo 4 houve menor rugosidade no Ketac®
(p=0.009).
CONCLUSÃO: A escolha do melhor ionómero está dependente de muitos
fatores clínicos, particularmente o tipo de técnica de polimento. Em crianças em
que não seja possível realizar qualquer tipo de polimento não devemos usar
o lonolux®. Em crianças que permitam realizar polimento teremos que avaliar
caso a caso.
Glass ionomers are widely used in pediatric dentistry, especially in non-cooperating patients. Its surface roughness disturbs the attached biofilm and can lead to failure. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the surface roughness values of three unfinished glass ionomers or submitted to finishing and polishing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we used: a resin-modified glass ionomer (Ionolux®, VOCO, Germany), one with high viscosity (IonoStarPlus®, VOCO, Germany) and one conventional (Ketac®, 3M, ESPE, USA). We created 60 cylindrical matrices (20 x 3 mm) of 20 pieces of each material and divided them into 4 different groups depending on the presence or absence of surface treatment (non-polished 1, preventive 2, Enhance® 3 and Soflex® 4). The surface roughness was assessed by rugosimetry and statistical analysis was performed at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Factorial ANOVA models that include analysis of variance between ionomer variables, polishing techniques, and interactions between IV and polishing techniques cannot be performed. Only statistical analysis by polishing technique was performed. In Group 1, Ionolux® showed the highest roughness (p <0.001). In Group 2, IonoStar Plus® has the lowest roughness (p <0.001). In Group 3, IonoStar Plus® has the lowest roughness (p <0.001). In Group 4, Ketac® has the lowest roughness (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: The choice of the best ionomer depends on many clinical factors, especially the type of polishing technique. lonolux® has the lowest results for children who cannot stand any kind of polishing technique. For children who allow polishing, we need to evaluate on a case-by-case basis.
Glass ionomers are widely used in pediatric dentistry, especially in non-cooperating patients. Its surface roughness disturbs the attached biofilm and can lead to failure. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the surface roughness values of three unfinished glass ionomers or submitted to finishing and polishing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we used: a resin-modified glass ionomer (Ionolux®, VOCO, Germany), one with high viscosity (IonoStarPlus®, VOCO, Germany) and one conventional (Ketac®, 3M, ESPE, USA). We created 60 cylindrical matrices (20 x 3 mm) of 20 pieces of each material and divided them into 4 different groups depending on the presence or absence of surface treatment (non-polished 1, preventive 2, Enhance® 3 and Soflex® 4). The surface roughness was assessed by rugosimetry and statistical analysis was performed at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Factorial ANOVA models that include analysis of variance between ionomer variables, polishing techniques, and interactions between IV and polishing techniques cannot be performed. Only statistical analysis by polishing technique was performed. In Group 1, Ionolux® showed the highest roughness (p <0.001). In Group 2, IonoStar Plus® has the lowest roughness (p <0.001). In Group 3, IonoStar Plus® has the lowest roughness (p <0.001). In Group 4, Ketac® has the lowest roughness (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: The choice of the best ionomer depends on many clinical factors, especially the type of polishing technique. lonolux® has the lowest results for children who cannot stand any kind of polishing technique. For children who allow polishing, we need to evaluate on a case-by-case basis.
Description
Keywords
Ionómeros de vidro Rugosidade superficial Técnicas de polimento e acabamento Glass ionomers Surface roughness Polishing and finishing techniques