Avaliação de fragmentos cerâmicos com e sem preparo do elemento dental, após acabamento e polimento, por meio de microscopia eletrônica de varredura

• Autor(a) principal: Lopes, Monique Solon de Mello Dourado
• Data de Publicação: 2014
• 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/1/14090
• topic: Dental Ceramic; Scan Electron Microscopy; Finishing Polishing; Cerâmica; Microscopia Eletrônica de Varredura; Restauração Dentária Permanente; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA

The present in vitro study aimed the qualitative analysis of marginal ceramic restorations based on lithium disilicate cemented over bovine teeth, mimicking the partial ultra thin laminated coverage restorations known as Sectional Veneers. We varied the presence or absence of tooth preparation, made with a cilindric diamond bur and two distinct protocols for finishing and polishing, as follows: Protocol 1, finish with a diamond bur and abrasive rubber and polishing with abrasive rubbers, and Protocol 2 , finishing and polishing with abrasive rubbers. Images generated by scanning electron microscopy were performed, and arranged in boards to be analyzed by the evaluators by scores under the following parameters: presence of cracks, marginal regularity, surface and marginal adaptation of the restoration. The data obtained from the qualitative analyzes of the images were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test with a significance level of 5%. The data obtained from the measurement of time (seconds) required for the evaluation of two protocols for finishing and polishing were statistically analyzed by Student's t test with significance level of 5%. After analyzing the results, it was concluded that there was no influence of the preparation of the enamel (P>0,05). There was not a statistically signifcant difference. As there was no statistically significant difference between the two finishing and polishing protocols according to the parameters evaluated (P>0,05). However, it is clear that there was a statistically significant difference between the time required for performance of the two protocols (P<0,05). We concluded that protocol 2 showed less clinical time.