Avaliação da adaptação interna de diferentes resinas Bulk Fill para cavidades de classe II em molares decíduos
Ano de defesa: | 2018 |
---|---|
Autor(a) principal: | |
Orientador(a): | |
Banca de defesa: | |
Tipo de documento: | Dissertação |
Tipo de acesso: | Acesso aberto |
Idioma: | por |
Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Positivo
Brasil Pós-Graduação Programa de Pós-Graduação em Odontologia Clínica UP |
Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Departamento: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
País: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Palavras-chave em Português: | |
Link de acesso: | https://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br/handle/123456789/2084 |
Resumo: | Class II restorations in deciduous molars are a constant challenge in pediatric dentistry clinics, mainly due to their technical complexity and also the chair time spent to perform them. With the development of single-insertion composites, the possibility of optimizing the operative time was considered and additionally valued the contribution to the behavioral management of the infant patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the formation of gaps and the marginal adaptation of different restorative materials to the internal walls of Class II cavities in deciduous molars. 36 standard Class II cavities were prepared in primary second molars. The samples were randomly divided in six groups each one respectively restored with specific materials: Filtek Z350; Filtek Bulk-Fill; Sonic Fill; Surefill SDR Flow + Spectra Smart; X-tra base + X-tra fill resins and Vitremer. The images of these restorations were than acquired by the Skyscan 1173 X-ray Microtomographer followed by a volumetric reconstruction analysis and measurement of the void volume in mm3 . The collected data were submitted to statistical analysis and Kruskal Wallis non-parametric test (p> 0.05). The results lead us to the medians values of: Z = 0,417; FB = 0,271; SF = 0,431; SS = 0,343; XX = 0,404 e VT = 0,279. The volume of gaps were statistically similar for all restorative materials evaluated (χ2 = 3.230; p = 0.665) indicating that there was no significant difference between any of the six materials studied. All the analyzed materials behaved in a similar manner in terms of wall adaption to class II cavities in primary molars. |