AVALIAÇÃO CLÍNICA E LABORATORIAL DE RESTAURAÇÕES COM RESINA BULK FILL INSERIDAS DE FORMA INCREMENTAL OU EM INCREMENTO ÚNICO

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Costa, Thays Regina Ferreira da
Data de Publicação: 2016
Tipo de documento: Tese
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UEPG
Texto Completo: http://tede2.uepg.br/jspui/handle/prefix/1706
Resumo: Objectives: In the experiment 1, an in vitro study, the aim was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS), nanoleakage (NL) and degree of conversion (DC) of different bulk-fill resin-based materials placed in bulk [BUL] or incrementally [INC] and in the experiment 2, a double blind randomized clinical trial, split mouth for each adhesive system, was conducted to compare the postoperative sensitivity of a bulk-fill resin-based material placed in BUL or INC in posterior composite resin restorations bonded with two different adhesive strategies (self-etch and etch-and-rinse). In the experiment 3, the objective was to describe the clinical steps involved in the placement of posterior composite resin restorations with bulk-fill resins. Materials and methods: In experiment 1, flat dentin surfaces of thirty extracted teeth were exposed and then were randomly assigned into 6 experimental conditions (n = 5). Composite buildups were constructed according to the combination of the main factors filling technique (BUL [single 4-mm thick layer] and INC [two 2-mm thick layers]) and composite resin (Filtek Bulk Fill Flow [FIL], 3M ESPE, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill [TET], Ivoclar Vivadent and SureFil SDR Flow [SDR], Dentsply Caulk) with their respective conventional adhesive systems. Teeth were sectioned to obtain bonded sticks (0.8 mm2) to be tested in tension (0.5 mm/min) for μTBS. For NL, two bonded sticks from each tooth were placed in 50% silver nitrate and polished with SiC paper and then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. For DC, three specimens per tooth were analyzed in micro-Raman spectroscopy. The mean μTBS (MPa) NL (%) and DC (%) data were submitted to a two-way ANOVA and Tukey´s test (α = 0.05). In experiment 2, a total of 236 posterior dental cavities with a cavity depth of at least 3 mm (72 participants) were randomly divided in four groups (n=59). Restorations were bonded either with the etch-and-rinse Tetric N-Bond (Ivoclar Vivadent) or with the self-etch Tetric N-Bond SE (Ivoclar Vivadent). The composite resin TET (Ivoclar-Vivadent) was placed either INC or in BUL techniques. Two experienced and calibrated examiners performed the evaluation of the restorations using the FDI criteria after one week of clinical service. Spontaneous postoperative sensitivity was assessed using a 0-4 and a 0-100 numerical rating scale (NRS), and a 0-10 visual analog scale (VAS) up to 48 h after the restorative procedure and one-week later. Results: In experiment 1, higher μTBS values (mean ± SD) were observed for FIL (57.5 ± 3.5) in the BUL technique when compared to other groups inserted in BUL (TET 52.6 ± 7.8; SDR 54.9 ± 4.3) or INC filling (FIL 51.8 ± 4.1; TET 47.9 ± 4.5; SDR 49.7 ± 3.8) - p > 0.05. No statistically significant difference was observed among the materials tested (p > 0.05). No significant difference was 9 detected in NL (FIL [7.6 ± 1.9 INC and 10.3 ± 2.3 BUL]; TET [10.9 ± 3.3 INC and 12.8 ± 4.0 BUL]) and DC (FIL [87.9 ± 7.0 INC and 85.6 ± 8.4 BUL]; TET [92.2 ± 3.4 INC and 83.3 ± 5.4 BUL]) between filling technique (p > 0.05). Higher NL values (13.0 ± 3.6 INC and 14.8 ± 2.5 BUL [p = 0.001]) and lower DC (49.7 ± 8.3 INC and 48.6 ± 4.0 BUL [p = 0.003]) were found when SDR was used. In experiment 2, neither the restorative technique nor the adhesive strategy affected the risk (p > 0.49) and intensity of spontaneous postoperative sensitivity (p > 0.38). The overall risk of postoperative sensitivity observed was 20.3% (95% CI 15.7 to 25.9) and occurred practically within the 48 h after the restorative procedure. Conclusions: The filling technique did not affect the μTBS, NL and DC of the bulk fill materials tested in this study. Clinically, the use of single increment of this new bulk-fill material, even in deep restorations, did not generate more postoperative sensitivity when compared to the incremental filling technique.
id UEPG_6c1052155995a16a99d7e8061e411810
oai_identifier_str oai:tede2.uepg.br:prefix/1706
network_acronym_str UEPG
network_name_str Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UEPG
repository_id_str
spelling Reis, AlessandraCPF:25713648800REIS, A.Loguércio, Alessandro DouradoCPF:38196913249http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4763905J5Schroeder, Marcos D'oliveiraCPF:01484754778http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4703400J2Siqueira, Márcia Fernanda de RezendeCPF:03130629947http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4448464J8Hass, VivianeCPF:05710273937http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4268047U0Gomes, Giovana MongruelCPF:04596448906http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4744265E6CPF:06467280911http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4247468U0Costa, Thays Regina Ferreira da2017-07-24T19:21:59Z2016-05-182017-07-24T19:21:59Z2016-02-18COSTA, Thays Regina Ferreira da. Clinical and laboratorial evaluation of bulk fill restorations placed in incremental or bulk filling. 2016. 139 f. Tese (Doutorado em Clinica Integrada, Dentística Restauradora e Periodontia) - UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE PONTA GROSSA, Ponta Grossa, 2016.http://tede2.uepg.br/jspui/handle/prefix/1706Objectives: In the experiment 1, an in vitro study, the aim was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS), nanoleakage (NL) and degree of conversion (DC) of different bulk-fill resin-based materials placed in bulk [BUL] or incrementally [INC] and in the experiment 2, a double blind randomized clinical trial, split mouth for each adhesive system, was conducted to compare the postoperative sensitivity of a bulk-fill resin-based material placed in BUL or INC in posterior composite resin restorations bonded with two different adhesive strategies (self-etch and etch-and-rinse). In the experiment 3, the objective was to describe the clinical steps involved in the placement of posterior composite resin restorations with bulk-fill resins. Materials and methods: In experiment 1, flat dentin surfaces of thirty extracted teeth were exposed and then were randomly assigned into 6 experimental conditions (n = 5). Composite buildups were constructed according to the combination of the main factors filling technique (BUL [single 4-mm thick layer] and INC [two 2-mm thick layers]) and composite resin (Filtek Bulk Fill Flow [FIL], 3M ESPE, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill [TET], Ivoclar Vivadent and SureFil SDR Flow [SDR], Dentsply Caulk) with their respective conventional adhesive systems. Teeth were sectioned to obtain bonded sticks (0.8 mm2) to be tested in tension (0.5 mm/min) for μTBS. For NL, two bonded sticks from each tooth were placed in 50% silver nitrate and polished with SiC paper and then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. For DC, three specimens per tooth were analyzed in micro-Raman spectroscopy. The mean μTBS (MPa) NL (%) and DC (%) data were submitted to a two-way ANOVA and Tukey´s test (α = 0.05). In experiment 2, a total of 236 posterior dental cavities with a cavity depth of at least 3 mm (72 participants) were randomly divided in four groups (n=59). Restorations were bonded either with the etch-and-rinse Tetric N-Bond (Ivoclar Vivadent) or with the self-etch Tetric N-Bond SE (Ivoclar Vivadent). The composite resin TET (Ivoclar-Vivadent) was placed either INC or in BUL techniques. Two experienced and calibrated examiners performed the evaluation of the restorations using the FDI criteria after one week of clinical service. Spontaneous postoperative sensitivity was assessed using a 0-4 and a 0-100 numerical rating scale (NRS), and a 0-10 visual analog scale (VAS) up to 48 h after the restorative procedure and one-week later. Results: In experiment 1, higher μTBS values (mean ± SD) were observed for FIL (57.5 ± 3.5) in the BUL technique when compared to other groups inserted in BUL (TET 52.6 ± 7.8; SDR 54.9 ± 4.3) or INC filling (FIL 51.8 ± 4.1; TET 47.9 ± 4.5; SDR 49.7 ± 3.8) - p > 0.05. No statistically significant difference was observed among the materials tested (p > 0.05). No significant difference was 9 detected in NL (FIL [7.6 ± 1.9 INC and 10.3 ± 2.3 BUL]; TET [10.9 ± 3.3 INC and 12.8 ± 4.0 BUL]) and DC (FIL [87.9 ± 7.0 INC and 85.6 ± 8.4 BUL]; TET [92.2 ± 3.4 INC and 83.3 ± 5.4 BUL]) between filling technique (p > 0.05). Higher NL values (13.0 ± 3.6 INC and 14.8 ± 2.5 BUL [p = 0.001]) and lower DC (49.7 ± 8.3 INC and 48.6 ± 4.0 BUL [p = 0.003]) were found when SDR was used. In experiment 2, neither the restorative technique nor the adhesive strategy affected the risk (p > 0.49) and intensity of spontaneous postoperative sensitivity (p > 0.38). The overall risk of postoperative sensitivity observed was 20.3% (95% CI 15.7 to 25.9) and occurred practically within the 48 h after the restorative procedure. Conclusions: The filling technique did not affect the μTBS, NL and DC of the bulk fill materials tested in this study. Clinically, the use of single increment of this new bulk-fill material, even in deep restorations, did not generate more postoperative sensitivity when compared to the incremental filling technique.Objetivos: No experimento 1, um estudo in vitro, o objetivo foi avaliar a resistência de união (RU), nanoinfiltração (NI) e grau de conversão (GC) de diferentes resinas compostas bulk fill inseridas de forma incremental (INC) ou em incremento único (UNI) e no experimento 2, um ensaio clínico randomizado duplo-cego de boca dividida para cada sistema adesivo, foi comparar a sensibilidade pós-operatória em restaurações realizadas com resina bulk fill em dentes posteriores variando a técnica de inserção (UNI e INC) e a estratégia adesiva (convencional e autocondicionante). No experimento 3, o objetivo foi realizar um relato de caso clínico demonstrando os passos clínicos envolvidos na execução de restaurações posteriores com uma resina bulk fill. Material e métodos: No experimento 1, trinta terceiros molares tiveram sua dentina planificada e exposta, foram divididos aleatoriamente em seis condições experimentais (n=5) e restaurados de acordo com a combinação dos fatores: técnica de inserção (UNI [uma camada de 4 mm] ou INC [2 camadas de 2 mm cada]) e resina composta (Filtek Bulk Fill Flow [FIL], 3M ESPE, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill [TET], Ivoclar Vivadent e SureFil SDR [SDR], Dentsply Caulk) com seus respectivos sistemas adesivos convencionais. Os dentes foram seccionados para obtenção de palitos (0,8 mm2) para serem testados em microtração (0,5 mm/min) para RU. Para NI, dois palitos de cada dente foram infiltrados com nitrato de prata amoniacal 50%, revelados, polidos com lixas de carbeto de silício com granulação crescente e avaliados em microscopia eletrônica de varredura. Para GC, três palitos por dente foram levados ao micro-Raman para análise do grau de conversão. As médias de RU (MPa), NI (%) e GC (%) foram submetidos a uma análise de variância de dois fatores e Teste de Tukey (α = 0,05). No experimento 2, setenta e dois participantes tiveram 236 cavidades com profundidade mínima de 3 mm randomicamente divididas em 4 grupos experimentais (n=59). Os sistemas adesivos utilizados foram o convencional Tetric N-Bond (Ivoclar Vivadent) ou o autocondicionante Tetric N-Bond SE (Ivoclar Vivavent). A resina composta utilizada foi TET (Ivoclar Vivadent), que foi inserida de forma INC ou UNI. Dois avaliadores experientes e calibrados avaliaram as restaurações utilizando os critérios da FDI uma semana após a inserção das restaurações. A sensibilidade pós-operatória imediata foi mensurada utilizando duas escalas numéricas, de 0-4 e de 0-100 e uma escala VAS de 0-10 até 48 horas após o procedimento restaurador e uma semana após. Resultados: No experimento 1, maiores valores de RU (média ± DP) foram observados para a FIL inserida na técnica UNI (57,5 ± 3,5) em comparação com os outros grupos: UNI (TET 52,6 ± 7,8; SDR 54,9 ± 4,3) ou INC (FIL 51,8 ± 4,1; TET 47,9 ± 4,5; SDR 49,7 ± 3,8) - p > 0,05. Não foi observada diferença estatisticamente 7 significante entre os materiais (p > 0,05). Para NI (%) (FIL [7,6 ± 1,9 INC e 10,3 ± 2,3 UNI]; TET [10,9 ± 3,3 INC e 12,8 ± 4,0 UNI]) e GC (%) (FIL [87,9 ± 7,0 INC e 85,6 ± 8,4 UNI]; TET [92,2 ± 3,4 INC e 83,3 ± 5,4 UNI]), não foram observadas diferenças entre as técnicas de inserção do material (p > 0,05). Maiores valores de NI (13,0 ± 3,6 INC e 14,8 ± 2,5 UNI [p = 0,001]) e menores valores de GC (49,7 ± 8,3 INC e 48,6 ± 4,0 UNI [p = 0,003]) foram encontrados para resina SDR. No experimento 2, nem a técnica de inserção e nem a estratégia adesiva alterou o risco de sensibilidade pós-operatória (p > 0,49) e a intensidade da sensibilidade (p > 0,38). O risco geral de sensibilidade pós-operatória observado foi de 20,3% (IC 95% 15,7 - 25,9) e ocorreu praticamente dentro das 48 horas após o procedimento restaurador. A técnica operatória mostrou-se simples e mais rápida de execução que a realizada de acordo com o protocolo de inserção incremental. Conclusões: A técnica de inserção não afeta a RU, NI e GC dos materiais utilizados no presente estudo. Clinicamente, o uso de resinas bulk fill inseridas em incremento único, mesmo em cavidades profundas, não aumenta a sensibilidade pós-operatória quando comparado com a inserção incremental, independentemente da estratégia adesiva utilizada.Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-24T19:21:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Thays Regina Ferreira da Costa.pdf: 2858725 bytes, checksum: f9f6052000f0a266a63eb325bc5d7b68 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-02-18Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superiorapplication/pdfporUNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE PONTA GROSSAPrograma de Pós-Graduação em OdontologiaUEPGBRClinica Integrada, Dentística Restauradora e Periodontiarestauração dentária permanenteensaio clínicosensibilidade da dentinadental restorationspermanentclinical trialcomposite resinsdental fillingdentin sensitivityCNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIAAVALIAÇÃO CLÍNICA E LABORATORIAL DE RESTAURAÇÕES COM RESINA BULK FILL INSERIDAS DE FORMA INCREMENTAL OU EM INCREMENTO ÚNICOClinical and laboratorial evaluation of bulk fill restorations placed in incremental or bulk fillinginfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UEPGinstname:Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG)instacron:UEPGORIGINALThays Regina Ferreira da Costa.pdfapplication/pdf2858725http://tede2.uepg.br/jspui/bitstream/prefix/1706/1/Thays%20Regina%20Ferreira%20da%20Costa.pdff9f6052000f0a266a63eb325bc5d7b68MD51prefix/17062017-07-24 16:21:59.983oai:tede2.uepg.br:prefix/1706Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertaçõeshttps://tede2.uepg.br/jspui/PUBhttp://tede2.uepg.br/oai/requestbicen@uepg.br||mv_fidelis@yahoo.com.bropendoar:2017-07-24T19:21:59Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UEPG - Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG)false
dc.title.por.fl_str_mv AVALIAÇÃO CLÍNICA E LABORATORIAL DE RESTAURAÇÕES COM RESINA BULK FILL INSERIDAS DE FORMA INCREMENTAL OU EM INCREMENTO ÚNICO
dc.title.alternative.eng.fl_str_mv Clinical and laboratorial evaluation of bulk fill restorations placed in incremental or bulk filling
title AVALIAÇÃO CLÍNICA E LABORATORIAL DE RESTAURAÇÕES COM RESINA BULK FILL INSERIDAS DE FORMA INCREMENTAL OU EM INCREMENTO ÚNICO
spellingShingle AVALIAÇÃO CLÍNICA E LABORATORIAL DE RESTAURAÇÕES COM RESINA BULK FILL INSERIDAS DE FORMA INCREMENTAL OU EM INCREMENTO ÚNICO
Costa, Thays Regina Ferreira da
restauração dentária permanente
ensaio clínico
sensibilidade da dentina
dental restorations
permanent
clinical trial
composite resins
dental filling
dentin sensitivity
CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA
title_short AVALIAÇÃO CLÍNICA E LABORATORIAL DE RESTAURAÇÕES COM RESINA BULK FILL INSERIDAS DE FORMA INCREMENTAL OU EM INCREMENTO ÚNICO
title_full AVALIAÇÃO CLÍNICA E LABORATORIAL DE RESTAURAÇÕES COM RESINA BULK FILL INSERIDAS DE FORMA INCREMENTAL OU EM INCREMENTO ÚNICO
title_fullStr AVALIAÇÃO CLÍNICA E LABORATORIAL DE RESTAURAÇÕES COM RESINA BULK FILL INSERIDAS DE FORMA INCREMENTAL OU EM INCREMENTO ÚNICO
title_full_unstemmed AVALIAÇÃO CLÍNICA E LABORATORIAL DE RESTAURAÇÕES COM RESINA BULK FILL INSERIDAS DE FORMA INCREMENTAL OU EM INCREMENTO ÚNICO
title_sort AVALIAÇÃO CLÍNICA E LABORATORIAL DE RESTAURAÇÕES COM RESINA BULK FILL INSERIDAS DE FORMA INCREMENTAL OU EM INCREMENTO ÚNICO
author Costa, Thays Regina Ferreira da
author_facet Costa, Thays Regina Ferreira da
author_role author
dc.contributor.advisor1.fl_str_mv Reis, Alessandra
dc.contributor.advisor1ID.fl_str_mv CPF:25713648800
dc.contributor.advisor1Lattes.fl_str_mv REIS, A.
dc.contributor.advisor-co1.fl_str_mv Loguércio, Alessandro Dourado
dc.contributor.advisor-co1ID.fl_str_mv CPF:38196913249
dc.contributor.advisor-co1Lattes.fl_str_mv http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4763905J5
dc.contributor.referee1.fl_str_mv Schroeder, Marcos D'oliveira
dc.contributor.referee1ID.fl_str_mv CPF:01484754778
dc.contributor.referee1Lattes.fl_str_mv http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4703400J2
dc.contributor.referee2.fl_str_mv Siqueira, Márcia Fernanda de Rezende
dc.contributor.referee2ID.fl_str_mv CPF:03130629947
dc.contributor.referee2Lattes.fl_str_mv http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4448464J8
dc.contributor.referee3.fl_str_mv Hass, Viviane
dc.contributor.referee3ID.fl_str_mv CPF:05710273937
dc.contributor.referee3Lattes.fl_str_mv http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4268047U0
dc.contributor.referee4.fl_str_mv Gomes, Giovana Mongruel
dc.contributor.referee4ID.fl_str_mv CPF:04596448906
dc.contributor.referee4Lattes.fl_str_mv http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4744265E6
dc.contributor.authorID.fl_str_mv CPF:06467280911
dc.contributor.authorLattes.fl_str_mv http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4247468U0
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Costa, Thays Regina Ferreira da
contributor_str_mv Reis, Alessandra
Loguércio, Alessandro Dourado
Schroeder, Marcos D'oliveira
Siqueira, Márcia Fernanda de Rezende
Hass, Viviane
Gomes, Giovana Mongruel
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv restauração dentária permanente
ensaio clínico
sensibilidade da dentina
topic restauração dentária permanente
ensaio clínico
sensibilidade da dentina
dental restorations
permanent
clinical trial
composite resins
dental filling
dentin sensitivity
CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv dental restorations
permanent
clinical trial
composite resins
dental filling
dentin sensitivity
dc.subject.cnpq.fl_str_mv CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA
description Objectives: In the experiment 1, an in vitro study, the aim was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS), nanoleakage (NL) and degree of conversion (DC) of different bulk-fill resin-based materials placed in bulk [BUL] or incrementally [INC] and in the experiment 2, a double blind randomized clinical trial, split mouth for each adhesive system, was conducted to compare the postoperative sensitivity of a bulk-fill resin-based material placed in BUL or INC in posterior composite resin restorations bonded with two different adhesive strategies (self-etch and etch-and-rinse). In the experiment 3, the objective was to describe the clinical steps involved in the placement of posterior composite resin restorations with bulk-fill resins. Materials and methods: In experiment 1, flat dentin surfaces of thirty extracted teeth were exposed and then were randomly assigned into 6 experimental conditions (n = 5). Composite buildups were constructed according to the combination of the main factors filling technique (BUL [single 4-mm thick layer] and INC [two 2-mm thick layers]) and composite resin (Filtek Bulk Fill Flow [FIL], 3M ESPE, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill [TET], Ivoclar Vivadent and SureFil SDR Flow [SDR], Dentsply Caulk) with their respective conventional adhesive systems. Teeth were sectioned to obtain bonded sticks (0.8 mm2) to be tested in tension (0.5 mm/min) for μTBS. For NL, two bonded sticks from each tooth were placed in 50% silver nitrate and polished with SiC paper and then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. For DC, three specimens per tooth were analyzed in micro-Raman spectroscopy. The mean μTBS (MPa) NL (%) and DC (%) data were submitted to a two-way ANOVA and Tukey´s test (α = 0.05). In experiment 2, a total of 236 posterior dental cavities with a cavity depth of at least 3 mm (72 participants) were randomly divided in four groups (n=59). Restorations were bonded either with the etch-and-rinse Tetric N-Bond (Ivoclar Vivadent) or with the self-etch Tetric N-Bond SE (Ivoclar Vivadent). The composite resin TET (Ivoclar-Vivadent) was placed either INC or in BUL techniques. Two experienced and calibrated examiners performed the evaluation of the restorations using the FDI criteria after one week of clinical service. Spontaneous postoperative sensitivity was assessed using a 0-4 and a 0-100 numerical rating scale (NRS), and a 0-10 visual analog scale (VAS) up to 48 h after the restorative procedure and one-week later. Results: In experiment 1, higher μTBS values (mean ± SD) were observed for FIL (57.5 ± 3.5) in the BUL technique when compared to other groups inserted in BUL (TET 52.6 ± 7.8; SDR 54.9 ± 4.3) or INC filling (FIL 51.8 ± 4.1; TET 47.9 ± 4.5; SDR 49.7 ± 3.8) - p > 0.05. No statistically significant difference was observed among the materials tested (p > 0.05). No significant difference was 9 detected in NL (FIL [7.6 ± 1.9 INC and 10.3 ± 2.3 BUL]; TET [10.9 ± 3.3 INC and 12.8 ± 4.0 BUL]) and DC (FIL [87.9 ± 7.0 INC and 85.6 ± 8.4 BUL]; TET [92.2 ± 3.4 INC and 83.3 ± 5.4 BUL]) between filling technique (p > 0.05). Higher NL values (13.0 ± 3.6 INC and 14.8 ± 2.5 BUL [p = 0.001]) and lower DC (49.7 ± 8.3 INC and 48.6 ± 4.0 BUL [p = 0.003]) were found when SDR was used. In experiment 2, neither the restorative technique nor the adhesive strategy affected the risk (p > 0.49) and intensity of spontaneous postoperative sensitivity (p > 0.38). The overall risk of postoperative sensitivity observed was 20.3% (95% CI 15.7 to 25.9) and occurred practically within the 48 h after the restorative procedure. Conclusions: The filling technique did not affect the μTBS, NL and DC of the bulk fill materials tested in this study. Clinically, the use of single increment of this new bulk-fill material, even in deep restorations, did not generate more postoperative sensitivity when compared to the incremental filling technique.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv 2016-05-18
2017-07-24T19:21:59Z
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2016-02-18
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2017-07-24T19:21:59Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis
format doctoralThesis
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.citation.fl_str_mv COSTA, Thays Regina Ferreira da. Clinical and laboratorial evaluation of bulk fill restorations placed in incremental or bulk filling. 2016. 139 f. Tese (Doutorado em Clinica Integrada, Dentística Restauradora e Periodontia) - UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE PONTA GROSSA, Ponta Grossa, 2016.
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://tede2.uepg.br/jspui/handle/prefix/1706
identifier_str_mv COSTA, Thays Regina Ferreira da. Clinical and laboratorial evaluation of bulk fill restorations placed in incremental or bulk filling. 2016. 139 f. Tese (Doutorado em Clinica Integrada, Dentística Restauradora e Periodontia) - UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE PONTA GROSSA, Ponta Grossa, 2016.
url http://tede2.uepg.br/jspui/handle/prefix/1706
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE PONTA GROSSA
dc.publisher.program.fl_str_mv Programa de Pós-Graduação em Odontologia
dc.publisher.initials.fl_str_mv UEPG
dc.publisher.country.fl_str_mv BR
dc.publisher.department.fl_str_mv Clinica Integrada, Dentística Restauradora e Periodontia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE PONTA GROSSA
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UEPG
instname:Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG)
instacron:UEPG
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG)
instacron_str UEPG
institution UEPG
reponame_str Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UEPG
collection Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UEPG
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv http://tede2.uepg.br/jspui/bitstream/prefix/1706/1/Thays%20Regina%20Ferreira%20da%20Costa.pdf
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv f9f6052000f0a266a63eb325bc5d7b68
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UEPG - Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa (UEPG)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bicen@uepg.br||mv_fidelis@yahoo.com.br
_version_ 1809460455212580864