Materiais retrobturadores: avaliação do selamento apical e da adaptação marginal

• Autor(a) principal: Machado, Andréia Gonçalves
• Data de Publicação: 2003
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UERJ
• Texto Completo: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/14077
• topic: Root-end filling materials; Sealing apical; Marginal adaptation; Materiais retrobturadores; Selamento apical; Adaptação marginal; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA

The aim of the study was to evaluate, in vitro, the marginal adaptation and the sealing ability of six root-end filling materials: amalgam, Portland cement, MTA, Super-EBA, IRM and Sealer 26. Ninety-four upper cuspids were selected for the two experiments. Every root canal were prepared and obturated using lateral condensation technique, and the roots were than apicoectomized, retroprepared using ultrasonic retrotips, and retrofilled with the test materials. To evaluate the marginal adaptation, 30 upper cuspids were randomly distributed into 6 groups, each containing 5 teeth. Afterwards, the samples were dehydrated, covered with gold-palladium, and observed under scanning electron microscopy. Digitized images were analyzed using Visio 5.0 Professional software or through the attribution of scores. For the evaluation of the sealing ability, the other 64 upper cuspids were distributed into 6 experimental groups of 10 each and 2 control groups positive and negative. The coronal access cavities were filled with temporary cement. The roots were covered with nail varnish and then immersed in solution of black Indian ink in fetal bovine serum by 48 hours. Afterwards, the teeth were longitudinally split, the root-end fillings were removed and examined using a profilemeter with regard to the length of dye penetration. The statistical analysis revealed statistically significant differences between Portland cement and Sealer 26 or MTA, regarding the evaluation of the marginal adaptation. Amalgam and IRM showed significantly higher leakage when compared to the other groups. No other significant differences were observed for the other test materials.