Este trabalho avaliou a influência da densidade de energia da pré-cura, e de diferentes tratamentos pós-cura na otimização das propriedades físicas (Resistência à Flexão e Dureza Knoop) de resinas compostas diretas, visando a possibilidade de indicação para restauraçoes indiretas. Foram usadas as resinas diretas Fillmagic, Concept, Glacier, Z100, Masterfill e W3D Master e as indiretas Solidex e Belleglass HP como controle. Para cada resina direta foram confeccionados 60 espécimes em barra (10x2x2mm), 30 irradiados em uma face e 30 nas duas faces (30 espécimes = 10 controle, 10 autoclave e 10 forno de luz). Para as resinas indiretas foram preparados 10 espécimes conforme processamento de seus fabricantes. 380 espécimes foram submetidos ao ensaio de resistência à flexão (Kratos). De cada condição experimental, 10 fragmentos foram usados para ensaio de microdureza Knoop (Shimadzu HMV-2). A análise de variância e o teste de Tukey demonstraram significância para resistência à flexão nos fatores Resina (p<0,001) e Tratamento (p=0,001) e na interação Resina x Tratamento (p=0,001). Para a microdureza Knoop os três fatores e as interações foram significantes: Resina (p=0,001); Face (p=0,001) Tratamento (p=0,017); Resina x Face (p=0,001); Resina x Tratamento (p=0,007); Face x Tratamento (p=0,001) e Resina x Face x Tratamento (p=0,024). A maior média de cada resina direta, independente da condição experimental, foi comparada às médias das resinas indiretas. Os resultados apontam que na resistência à flexão (Z100 = W3D = Fillmagic = Glacier) e (Z100 > Masterfill > Belleglass HP > Concept > Solidex). Na Dureza Knoop (Z100 > Belleglass HP, Fillmagic, W3D, Concept, Glacier, Masterfill e Solidex). Conclusão: as propriedades físicas (resistência à flexão e dureza Knoop) não são obstáculos na indicação de resinas compostas de uso direto para restaurações indiretas / This study evaluated the influence of pre-cure energy density, and additional post-cure treatments in optimizing the physical properties (Flexural strength and Knoop microhardness) of direct resin composites with the aim at allowing their use for indirect restorations. Direct resin composites evaluated were Fillmagic, Concept, Glacier, Z100, Masterfill and W3D Master; indirect composites were Solidex and Belleglass HP. Sixty bar-shaped specimens (10x2x2mm) were prepared for each material, so that 30 of them were light-cured by one surface and 30 on both surfaces. From the 30 specimens of each group, 10 were control, 10 were submitted to additional autoclave and 10 to light oven treatment. Ten specimens were prepared with each indirect composite following the manufactures recommendations. The 380 specimens were submitted to flexural strength test (Kratos universal testing machine), and values obtained at fracture were reported. After that, 10 fragments were chosen for each experimental condition and assessed for Knoop microhardness (Shimadzu HMV-2). Data were submitted to analysis of variance and Tukeys test at p<0.05. Statistically significant differences were found among flexural strength results regarding composite materials (p<0.001), treatments (p<0.001) and interactions (composite x treatment, p<0.001). Regarding Knoop microhardness, both three factors and their interactions were also significant: composite (p<0.001), surface (p<0.001) and treatment (p<0.017), composite x surface (p<0.001), composite treatment (p<0.001), surface x treatment (p<0.001) and composite x surface x treatment (p<0.024). The highest mean value for each direct composite, regardless of the experimental condition, was compared to the mean values obtained for the indirect materials. With regard to flexural strength, comparisons point out that Z100 = W3D = Fillmagic = Glacier and Z100 > Masterfill > Belleglass HP > Concept > Solidex, whereas for Knoop microhardness Z100 > Belleglass HP, Fillmagic, W3D, Concept, Glacier, Masterfill and Solidex. Conclusion: considering the physical properties evaluated in this study, they are not an obstacle to the indication of direct composites for indirect restorations
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:teses.usp.br:tde-11012006-124342 |
| Date | 09 December 2005 |
| Creators | Ana Maria Lima Almeida |
| Contributors | Carlos Eduardo Francci, Gelson Luiz Adabo, Claudia Maria Coêlho Alves, Paulo Francisco Cesar, Saulo Geraldeli |
| Publisher | Universidade de São Paulo, Odontologia (Materiais Dentários), USP, BR |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis |
| Source | reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP, instname:Universidade de São Paulo, instacron:USP |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0027 seconds