Submitted by PPG Odontologia (odontologia-pg@pucrs.br) on 2018-06-04T18:19:16Z No. of bitstreams: 1 BIANCA_SOARES_ZAMBIASI_DIS.pdf: 758503 bytes, checksum: 8be0192f396b8b0f4c6df98b83a9d972 (MD5) / Rejected by Sheila Dias (sheila.dias@pucrs.br), reason: Devolvido devido ? falta de capa institucional no arquivo em PDF. on 2018-06-14T17:04:02Z (GMT) / Submitted by PPG Odontologia (odontologia-pg@pucrs.br) on 2018-06-26T12:16:19Z No. of bitstreams: 1 BIANCA_SOARES_ZAMBIASI_DIS.pdf: 578649 bytes, checksum: c63b0e7591fc3dce9a38312f414e4e43 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Sheila Dias (sheila.dias@pucrs.br) on 2018-07-02T16:48:43Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 BIANCA_SOARES_ZAMBIASI_DIS.pdf: 578649 bytes, checksum: c63b0e7591fc3dce9a38312f414e4e43 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-07-02T16:57:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 BIANCA_SOARES_ZAMBIASI_DIS.pdf: 578649 bytes, checksum: c63b0e7591fc3dce9a38312f414e4e43 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-01-26 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / Aims: To evaluate, in vitro, the fracture resistance and the pattern of failure of endodontically treated molars restored with different direct restorative techniques. Materials and methods: 70 third healthy molars extracted were divided into 7 groups (n = 10): (all groups except H received root canal treatment) H-sound; Z250PT ? horizontally transfixed fiberglass post + Z250 composite resin; Z250FO ? Z250 + occlusal fiberglass tape; Z250FP ? Z250 + fiberglass tape along the floor of the pulp chamber; PREP-only cavity preparation; COL ? Restored with Coltosol. After the restorative procedures, the samples were subjected to 250,000 cycles of mechanical testing fatigue under 200N. Right after, the samples were submitted to the fracture resistance testing and the analysis of the type of fracture which were classified as follows: Pulp chamber floor (non-repairable) or cusps (repairable). Results: (means (N) followed by the same letter do not present statistical difference to ANOVA and Tukey (p > 0.05): H 3832A; Z250PT 2726B; Z250FO 1647C; Z250FP 1548C; Z250 1622C; PREP 514D; COL 450D. Conclusion: The restorative technique that presents higher resistance to the fracture as well as higher percentage of repairable failures is horizontal transfixing with fiberglass post, Z250PT group. The insertion of fiberglass tape into the composite resin did not present improvement in the resistance, nor in the fracture pattern, when compared to the use of traditional composite resin. / Objetivo: Avaliar, in vitro, a resist?ncia ? fratura e o padr?o de falha de dentes tratados endodonticamente restaurados com diferentes t?cnicas restauradoras diretas. Materiais e M?todos: Setenta terceiros molares h?gidos extra?dos foram divididos em 7 grupos (n=10) assim distribu?dos: (todos os grupos exceto H receberam endodontia) H- h?gidos; Z250PT ? pino de fibra de vidro transfixado horizontalmente + resina composta Z250; Z250FO ? Z250+fita de fibra de vidro oclusal; Z250FP ? Z250 + fita de fibra de vidro junto ao assoalho da c?mara pulpar; PREP ? apenas preparo cavit?rio; COL ? restaurado com material provis?rio Coltosol. Ap?s o t?rmino das restaura??es as amostras foram submetidas a 250 mil ciclos de fadiga mec?nica sob 200N. Em seguida, foi realizado o ensaio de resist?ncia ? fratura e a an?lise do tipo de fratura p?sensaio as quais foram classificadas em: assoalho da c?mara pulpar (irrepar?vel) ou c?spides (repar?vel). Resultados: (m?dias (N) seguidas de mesma letra n?o apresentam diferen?a estat?stica para ANOVA e Tukey (p>0,05): H 3832A; Z250PT 2726B; Z250FO 1647C; Z250FP 1548C; Z250 1622C; PREP 514D; COL 450D. Conclus?o: A t?cnica restauradora que apresenta maior resist?ncia ? fratura. bem como maior percentual de falhas repar?veis ? a transfixa??o horizontal com pino de fibra de vidro, grupo Z250PT. A inser??o de fita de fibra de vidro na resina composta n?o apresentou melhora na resist?ncia, nem no padr?o de fratura, quando comparado a utiliza??o de resina composta tradicional.