Efeito de diferentes protetores de superfície na resistência à tração diametral e na liberação de flúor nos cimentos ionoméricos tipo II

• Autor(a) principal: Silva, Thiago Moitrel Pequeno da
• Data de Publicação: 2007
• 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/1/14180
• topic: Glass ionomer cement; Fluoride release; Diametral tensile strength; Atraumatic restorative treatment; Flúor; Resistência à tração; Cimentos de ionômero de vidro; Liberação de flúor; Resistência à tração diametral; Tratamento Restaurador Atraumático; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA

This study evaluated the effect of different protective coatings on the fluoride release (FR) and on the diametral tensile strength (DTS) of two conventional restorative glass ionomer cements (GIC), Chemfil e Chemflex (Dentsply). The cements were manipulated according to the manufacturer's recommendation. The especimens were divided into five groups: group 1 uncoated (control group); group 2 petroleum jelly; group 3 dental varnish (Cavitine, S.S.White); group 4 - fluoride varnish (Duraflur, Denstply); group 5 dentin adhesive (Magic Bond, Vigodent). To the FR test were made 40 especimens to each CIV, with dimensions of 4mm in diameter by 6 mm in length divided randomly into the groups and kept individually in plastic containers with 5 mL of deionized water. The fluoride level was registered within 04 hours, 24 hours, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after the confection in an Expandable Íon Analyser EA 960, and the results were calculated in μgF/ cm2. To the DTS test 120 especimens were made to each GIC, with dimensions of 4mm in diameter by 6mm in length divided randomly into the groups. Mechanical tests were made within 1 day and 14 days after the confection and saving of specimens individually in plastic containers with 5 mL of deionized water, in an universal tests machine EMIC DL 500 MF, and a third test was made after 14 days of des-remineralization cycles. The data was statistically treated by ANOVA and by Student Newman-Keuls (p<0,05). In the FR test the results showed that the Chemfil released a significant bigger amount of fluoride then the Chemflex. During the tests period, the petroleum jelly and the dental varnish had a similar behavior, presenting lower fluoride release then the control group in the first 4 hours, with a greater release in the second analysis (within 24 hours). The especimens protected by petroleum jelly and dental varnish had a fluoride release similar to the control group on the periods of 3, 7 and 14 days. The fluoride varnish showed a great influence in the first 24 hours. From the third analysis on, each ionomer material s characteristics became prominent, and was noticed a bigger fluoride release on the Chemfil in comparison to the Chemflex. In relation to the coated with dentin adhesive, there was a drastic decrease of fluoride release for Chemfil and Chemflex, in all of the analysis periods. In the DTS test Chemfil didn t show statistically significant difference when the diametral tensile strength of the control group was evaluated in the various periods of time (24 hours, 14 days and de-remineralization), which also happened to Chemflex. When evaluating the influence of different surface protectors on the GIC used at this study, it was noticed that for the Chemfil the surface coating had little influence on the material s behavior, having on most of the time, the same behavior as the control group. However, to the Chemflex material, the use of a surface coating such as the fluoride varnish or the dentin adhesive allowed bigger values of diametral tensile strength. The conclusion is that when the use of GIC is wanted for a short period of time the Chemfil uncoated seems the most indicated. However, if the period of use is longer, the Chemflex with the fluoride varnish protection is the most indicated.