Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2016-08-22T21:16:09Z No. of bitstreams: 1 GiovannaDeFatimaAlvesDaCosta_DISSERT.pdf: 9340416 bytes, checksum: b55d9a3f32743415d64d3bda38bbd9d5 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2016-08-22T21:32:13Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 GiovannaDeFatimaAlvesDaCosta_DISSERT.pdf: 9340416 bytes, checksum: b55d9a3f32743415d64d3bda38bbd9d5 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-22T21:32:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 GiovannaDeFatimaAlvesDaCosta_DISSERT.pdf: 9340416 bytes, checksum: b55d9a3f32743415d64d3bda38bbd9d5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-12-12 / Objetivo: avaliar in vitro a rugosidade superficial e a ades?o bacteriana de comp?sitos nanoparticulados, ap?s serem submetidas a diferentes sistemas de acabamento e polimento. Materiais e M?todos Foram confeccionados 60 corpos de prova, distribu?dos em 6 grupos (n=10). Em todos os grupos foi utilizada tira matriz de poli?ster sobre a superf?cie das amostras, e cada tipo de resina foi submetido aos sistemas de acabamento e polimento: discos Sof-Lex Pop-On (3M ESPE, St.Paul, USA) e sistema AstropolTM (Ivoclar Vivadent,NY,USA), caracterizando o grupo experimental; o grupo controle n?o foi submetido a nenhum tipo de t?cnica de acabamento e polimento. A rugosidade m?dia (Ra) em ambos os grupos foi mensurada atrav?s de um rugos?metro (Taylor Hobson Brazil, Ltda., S?o Paulo, SP, Brazil) na configura??o de 0,25mm (cut off) e as imagens da superf?cie obtidas com fotomicrografias captadas por um microsc?pio eletr?nico de varredura (MEV) com aumento de 500 vezes. A ades?o bacteriana foi avaliada por meio da leitura de espectrofotometria com configura??o de 570?m. Os resultados foram submetidos ? an?lise de vari?ncia (ANOVA dois fatores. Resultados: Foram encontradas diferen?as estat?sticas significativas entre os grupos quanto ? rugosidade e ? ades?o bacteriana. Para a resina Filtek Z350 XT houve diferen?as entre os sistemas de acabamento e polimento testados, onde o sistema que apresentou menor rugosidade superficial foi o Sof-lex Pop-On. Para a resina IPS Empress Direct, o sistema de acabamento e polimento Astropol, obteve menores resultados de rugosidade superficial. Quanto ? ades?o bacteriana, o menor valor de densidade ?ptica para a resina Filtek Z350 XT foi para o grupo que utilizou o sistema de acabamento e polimento Sof-Lex Pop-On e para a resina IPS Empress Direct o grupo que utilizou o sistema Astropol. Al?m disso, verificou-se uma correla??o positiva entre a rugosidade superficial e ades?o bacteriana nas superf?cies polidas (r = 0,612, p <0,001) Conclus?es: a rugosidade superficial e a ades?o bacteriana est?o estreitamente relacionadas. O sistema de acabamento e polimento Sof-Lex Pop-On est? mais indicado para a resina nanoparticulada Filtek Z350 XT e o sistema de acabamento e polimento Astropol para a resina nanoh?brida IPS Empress Direct. / Objective: To evaluate in vitro the surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of nanoparticle composites, after being subjected to different finishing and polishing systems. Materials and Methods: 66 specimens were prepared, and 30 with Filtek Z350 XT (3M ESPE, USA) and 30 with the resin IPS Empress Direct (Ivoclar Vivadent, USA), divided into 6 groups (n = 10 ). Six specimens were prepared for analysis in scanning electron microscopy (SEM) .Each kind of resin was subjected to finishing and polishing systems: Sof-Lex Pop-On discs (3M ESPE, USA) and AstropolTM system (Ivoclar Vivadent , USA), featuring the experimental group. The control group did not undergo any kind of finishing and polishing technique. The average roughness (Ra) in both groups was measured using a roughness in the setting of 0.25 mm (cut off) and surface images obtained with photomicrographs taken with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) magnified 500 times. Bacterial adherence was evaluated by determining the absorbance (OD) of the suspension of adhered cells by spectrophotometer at 570 nm. The results were submitted for analyzed with 2-way ANOVA at ?=.05 and Tukey multiple comparison tests. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the groups in terms of roughness and bacterial adhesion. Filtek Z350 XT for resin were no differences between the tested finishing and polishing systems, where the system of lowest surface roughness was the Sof-Lex Pop-On. To the resin IPS Empress Direct, the finishing and polishing system Astropol, had lower results of surface roughness. As for bacterial adhesion, the lowest optical density value for Filtek Z350 XT was for the group that used the finishing and polishing system Sof-Lex Pop-On and the resin IPS Empress Direct the group that used the Astropol system. In addition, there was a positive correlation between surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on polished surfaces (r = 0.612) Conclusions: surface roughness and bacterial adhesion are closely related. The finishing and polishing Sof-Lex Pop-On system is more suitable for nanoparticulate Filtek Z350 XT and the finishing and polishing system Astropol for resin nanoh?brida IPS Empress Direct.