Avaliação clínica e radiográfica de restaurações com resina bulk fill e cimento de ionômero de vidro modificado por resina: estudo comparativo em cavidades classe II de molares decíduos

• Ano de defesa: 2017
• Autor(a) principal: Silva, Renata Maria de Oliveira
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Uberlândia; Brasil; Programa de Pós-graduação em Odontologia
• Palavras-chave em Português: Odontologia; Dentes decíduos; Materiais dentários; Resinas compostas (Odontologia); Cimento de lonômero de vidro; Deciduous tooth; Dental materials; Glass ionomer cements; Composite resins; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufu.br/handle/123456789/19727; http://doi.org/10.14393/ufu.di.2017.226

Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the clinical and radiographic performance of bulk fill resin when used as Class II restorations in primary molars compared to resin-modified glass ionomer cement Methodology: A total of 16 children, aged 4-7 years old, having caries on the occlusal and/proximal surfaces without signs and/or symptoms of irreversible pulpits were selected. It was placed 39 restorations in primary molars, 21 were of (RMGIC). randomly allocated for a each tooth am the restoration performed by one trained operator and 18 of bulk fill resin (BFR). The materials and the teeth were selected by lottery and done by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated clinically at baseline and after 1 and 6 months following the criteria of United States Public Health Service - USPHS (retention, color, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, tooth secondary, surface texture and anatomical form) X-ray images were taken at baseline and after 6 months. For the statistical analysis was perfomed using the Mann-Whitney U test (X = 0,05). Results: Both materials showed few failures of clinical and radiographic evaluations, however significant difference was found for the anatomical form (0.0146), being the BFR the material of better performance for this criterion. Conclusion: Both materials presented satisfactory performance, at 6 months for Class II restoring in primary molars, however for anatomical form the BFR showed better performance.