Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2012 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Zander-grande, Christiana
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Reis, Alessandra
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Bauer, José Roberto de Oliveira
,
Moura, Sandra Kiss
|
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE PONTA GROSSA
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Odontologia
|
| Departamento: |
Clinica Integrada, Dentística Restauradora e Periodontia
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://tede2.uepg.br/jspui/handle/prefix/1819
|
Resumo: |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different protocols of application of conventional and self-etch adhesive systems over the years, in a laboratory study and two clinical studies. Objective 1: to evaluate the microtensile bond strengths (microTBS) of 1-step vs. 2-step self-etch systems to dentin after 24 hours and after 6 months of water storage. Objective 2: to evaluate the 24-month clinical performance of resin–based composites in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in teeth restored with two etch-and-rinse adhesives that had been applied with a vigorous rubbing action to both dry and rewet dentin. Objectives 3: to evaluate the clinical performance of two one-step self-etch adhesives in non carious cervical lesions (NCCL) under active or passive application mode. Methods 1: resin composite buildups were bonded to occlusal dentin of third molars using the following adhesives: Xeno IV (XE, Dentsply), G-Bond (GB, GC Inc), Clearfil S3 Bond (CS3, Kuraray); Adper Prompt L-Pop (AD, 3M ESPE); Go (GO, SDI), All Bond SE (ABSE 1-step or ABSE 2-step, Bisco) and Clearfil SE Bond (CSE, Kuraray). The bonded sticks (cross-sectioned area of 0.8-0.9 mm2) originated from the same teeth were randomly divided to be tested after 24 hours or after 6 months of water storage. The data was submitted to two-way repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey's test with and without the inclusion of premature failures (PF) (alpha = 0.05). Methods 2: were enrolled 40 patients in this study. They inserted 160 restorations and evaluated them at baseline and at six, 12 and 24 months of service. They divided the restorations into four groups: One-Step (OS) Universal Dental Adhesive System (Bisco, Schaumburg, Ill.) (acetone-based adhesive) with rewet dentin; OS with dry dentin; Adper Single Bond (SB) Plus Adhesive (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn.) (ethanol/water–based adhesive) with rewet dentin; and SB with dry dentin. The authors used the same resin–based composite for all restorations. They evaluated the restorations according to modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. Methods 3: 31 patients with 4 NCCL were enrolled in this study. One hundred and twenty four restorations were placed according to one of the following conditions: (1) APA (Adper Prompt L Pop, active application), (2) APP (Adper Prompt L-Pop - passive application); (3) XEA (Xeno III - active application) and (4) XEP (Xeno III - passive application). The restorations were evaluated by the FDI criteria at baseline, after 6, 12 and 24 months of clinical service. The effects of adhesive, mode of application and recall period were assessed via mixed generalized linear model (alfa=0.05). Results 1: the inclusion of PF resulted in different statistically significant means for CS3, CSE and AD (P<0.05). Results 2: the 24-month retention rates for the rewet and dry conditions, respectively, were 95.0 percent and 97.5 percent for SB and 97.5 percent and 91.9 percent for OS. The authors detected no significant difference between rewet and dry groups for either adhesive (P > .05). In terms of marginal discoloration, OS performed significantly worse than did SB, irrespective of dentin moisture (P > .05). Results 3: the adhesive AP and the passive application mode showed significant higher marginal staining than XE and active application, respectively (p < 0.05). In regard to the retention rates, the active application mode yielded higher retention rates at the 24-month recall compared to the passive application, regardless of the material. The individual retention rates (%, 95% confidence interval) of both adhesive in the active application mode were the same 96.8% (83.8– 99.4), while in the passive application were 87.1% (71.2–94.9) and 80.7% (63.7–90.8), respectively, for XE and AP. Conclusions 1: only the ABSE2 showed stable bonds after 6 months of water storage (P>0.05). Conclusions 2: dentin moisture seems not to be important for the retention of etch-and-rinse adhesives as long as the adhesives have been rubbed vigorously onto the dentin surface. The ethanol/water–based adhesive showed a better overall performance than did the acetone–based system. Conclusions 3: the active application improved the retention rates of both adhesives after 24 months and minimized the marginal staining at enamel margins. |
