Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-14T13:30:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
447186.pdf: 2766501 bytes, checksum: a394900abd9b1fe55a4a5e1b39342bad (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2013-03-21 / This study aimed to evaluate, in vitro, the mediate microtensile bond strength- μTBS (12 months) of adhesive systems Adper Scotchbond SE / 3M/ESPE (Adper SE) and Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose / 3M/ESPE (Adper SMP) to sound dentin surface, treated or not with an experimental acid solution inhibitor of metalloproteinases (MMPs), as well as the predominant pattern of failure by fractography; and evaluate, in vitro, the inhibition of gelatinolytic activity by an experimental acid solution for dentin surface etching containing tetracycline compared with an experimental solution containing tetracycline. For mediate μTBS evaluation, in Adper SE Control and Adper SMP Control groups, the adhesive system was applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. In Adper SE Experimental group was applied the experimental solution prior to the adhesive system, and in the Adper Experimental SMP group, the etching with 37% phosphoric acid was replaced by applying the experimental solution. After applying the adhesive systems, the teeth were prepared for μTBS test, and the sticks were stored in an oven at 37?C. After 12 months μTBS test was realized and the sticks were evaluated by SEM. For enzymatic activity evaluation, saliva samples were collected from healthy donors, centrifuged and the supernatant was used by technique of zymography. This technique was based on the use of electrophoresis, in which a protein substrate (gelatin) was co-polymerized with acrylamide. The enzymes were separated under non-reducing conditions, renatured and then incubated in suitable buffer, based on the association between the substrate digestion and verification of the molecular weight of proteases. To quantify the relative inhibition by the two solutions was used the Image J software (NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA) and compared with the control. For mediate μTBS evaluation, according to the Tukey test (α = 0.05), no difference between the control and experimental groups was found for each adhesive system. The predominant pattern of failure for the system Adper SE was cohesive in composite while for Adper SMP was cohesive in hybrid layer. In the enzymatic activity evaluation, the enzymes were characterized as matrix metalloproteinases, because its expression was inhibited by EDTA (a known inhibitor of MMPs), while NEM (an inhibitor of serine proteases) had no effect on enzymatic activity. The MMP identified in the study, was characterized as MMP-2, with a molecular weight of 62KDa. The experimental acid solution presented an inhibition of the gelatinolytic activity of 93.66% (concentration 0.05%) and 58.58% (0.01% concentration), while the experimental solution had a percentage inhibition of 31.28% and 6.83%, respectively. Based on these results we conclude that after 12 months of storage, the adhesive system Adper SE showed better performance that Adper SMP in the microtensile bond strength test, also seeming to be more effective in maintaining the integrity of the adhesive interface, under fractographic analysis; and that the experimental acid solution for dentin surface etching was capable of almost completely inhibits the enzymatic activity of MMP-2 in a dose dependent manner. / Este estudo teve por objetivo avaliar, in vitro, a resist?ncia de uni?o ? microtra??o (RUM) mediata (12 meses) dos sistemas adesivos Adper Scotchbond SE / 3M/ESPE (Adper SE) e Adper Scotchbond Multi-Uso / 3M/ESPE (Adper SMP) ? superf?cie dentin?ria sadia, tratada ou n?o com uma solu??o ?cida experimental inibidora de metaloproteinases (MMPs), bem como o padr?o predominante de falha por fractografia; e avaliar, in vitro, a inibi??o da atividade gelatinol?tica por uma solu??o ?cida experimental para condicionamento de superf?cie dentin?ria contendo tetraciclina em compara??o com uma solu??o experimental contendo tetraciclina. Para avalia??o da RUM mediata, nos grupos Adper SE Controle e Adper SMP Controle, o sistema adesivo foi aplicado de acordo com as instru??es do fabricante. No grupo Adper SE Experimental foi aplicada a solu??o experimental previamente ao sistema adesivo, e no grupo Adper SMP Experimental, o condicionamento com ?cido fosf?rico a 37% foi substitu?do pela aplica??o da solu??o experimental. Ap?s a aplica??o dos sistemas adesivos, os dentes foram preparados para o teste de RUM, e os palitos obtidos foram armazenados em estufa a 37oC. Ap?s 12 meses, foi realizado o teste RUM e os palitos foram avaliados em MEV. Para avalia??o da atividade enzim?tica, amostras salivares foram coletadas de doadores saud?veis, centrifugadas e o sobrenadante foi usado atrav?s da t?cnica zimogr?fica. Esta t?cnica baseou-se no uso da eletroforese, no qual um substrato proteico (gelatina) foi co-polimerizado com acrilamida. As enzimas foram separadas sob condi??es n?o redutoras, renaturadas e ent?o incubadas em tamp?o adequado, baseando-se na associa??o entre digest?o do substrato e verifica??o do peso molecular das proteases. Para quantificar a inibi??o relativa pelas duas solu??es foi usado o programa Image J (NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA) e comparadas com o controle. Em rela??o ? RUM mediata, de acordo com o teste de Tukey (α=0.05), n?o houve diferen?a entre os grupos controle e experimental para cada sistema adesivo. O padr?o predominante de falha para o sistema adesivo Adper SE foi coesiva em resina composta enquanto que para o Adper SMP foi coesiva em camada h?brida. Na an?lise zimogr?fica, as enzimas foram caracterizadas como metaloproteinases da matriz, pois a sua express?o foi inibida pelo EDTA (um conhecido inibidor de MMPs), enquanto o NEM (um inibidor de proteases serinas) n?o teve nenhum efeito sobre a atividade enzim?tica. A MMP identificada no estudo, foi caracterizada como MMP-2, apresentando um peso molecular de 62KDa. A solu??o ?cida experimental apresentou um percentual de inibi??o da atividade gelatinol?tica de 93.66% (concentra??o de 0.05%) e de 58.58% (concentra??o de 0.01%), enquanto que a solu??o experimental teve um percentual de inibi??o de 31.28% e 6.83%, respectivamente. Com base nos resultados encontrados ? poss?vel concluir que ap?s 12 meses de armazenagem, o sistema adesivo Adper SE mostrou desempenho superior ao Adper SMP no teste de RUM, parecendo tamb?m ser mais efetivo na manuten??o da integridade da interface adesiva, sob an?lise fractogr?fica; e que a solu??o ?cida experimental condicionadora de superf?cie dentin?ria foi capaz de inibir quase completamente a atividade enzim?tica da MMP-2, de uma maneira dose dependente.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:tede2.pucrs.br:tede/1200 |
| Date | 21 March 2013 |
| Creators | Melara, Rafael |
| Contributors | Burnett Junior, Luiz Henrique |
| Publisher | Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul, Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Odontologia, PUCRS, BR, Faculdade de Odontologia |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS, instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, instacron:PUC_RS |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| Relation | -8096554818733665164, 500, 600, 4673435736271820140 |
Page generated in 0.0167 seconds