| Ano de defesa: |
2022 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Zambiasi, Bianca Soares
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Spohr, Ana Maria
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Odontologia
|
| Departamento: |
Escola de Ciências Saúde e da Vida
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/10460
|
| Resumo: |
Objective: To evaluate, in vivo, the survival of composite resin restorations using the conventional technique or composite resin restorations with transfixed fiberglass post. Materials and Methods: Twenty-two patients and 24 teeth were included in the study, 12 in Group 1 (conventional) and 12 in Group 2 (transfixed fiberglass post). The restorative technique was randomly assigned into the two groups. After the restorative procedures, the restored teeth were evaluated following the modified USPHS criteria at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. Fisher's exact test compared the two restorative techniques in each clinical criterion and in each assessment. McNemar's test compared the clinical criteria at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years for each restorative technique. The significance level was 5%. Results: There was no statistical difference between the restorative techniques, as well as among the assessments (p>0.05). Conclusion: At 2-year evaluation, the restorations with transfixed fiberglass post showed performance comparable to the conventional composite resin restorations. |
|---|
