• JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
 
  Bookmark and Share
 
 
Doctoral Thesis
DOI
https://doi.org/10.11606/T.23.2004.tde-28022005-145232
Document
Author
Full name
Daniela Prócida Raggio
E-mail
Institute/School/College
Knowledge Area
Date of Defense
Published
São Paulo, 2004
Supervisor
Committee
Pinto, Antonio Carlos Guedes (President)
Guimarães Primo, Laura Salignac de Souza
Imparato, Jose Carlos Pettorossi
Long, Sucena Matuk
Navarro, Maria Fidela de Lima
Title in Portuguese
"Dureza Knoop de cimentos de ionômero de vidro indicados para o tratamento restaurador atraumático (TRA)"
Keywords in Portuguese
Cimentos de ionômero de vidro
Dureza Knoop
Inserção
Tratamento Restaurador Atraumático
Abstract in Portuguese
O objetivo do estudo foi avaliar a dureza Knoop de cimentos de ionômero de vidro indicados para o Tratamento Restaurador Atraumático (TRA) – G1: Ketac TM Molar; G2: Ketac TM Molar Easy Mix (3M ESPE) e G3: Magic Glass ® (Vigodent), assim como três diferentes técnicas de inserção, apenas com o Ketac TM Molar Easy Mix (3M ESPE), configurando os grupos: G4: inserção com espátula; G5: seringa comercial (Centrix ® ) e G6: seringa de baixo custo (Injex ® insulina – 1ml, acoplada a agulha BD 1,60 X 40). Os materiais foram dosados e manipulados de acordo com as instruções dos fabricantes, sendo realizados dez corpos de prova para cada grupo, em moldes de PVC, e após 10 minutos imersos em solução oleosa (Parafina líquida, Merck), a 37ºC, por 24 horas. As superfícies foram polidas com lixa de granulação 1200 (Buheler), em máquina politriz. O teste de dureza foi realizado em durômetro HM-124 (Mitutoyo, Japan), com 25 g de carga e 30 s, com penetrador tipo Knoop. Em cada amostra foram realizadas 5 indentações e repetidas após 1 e 2 semanas, mantidas nas mesmas condições. As médias da dureza Knoop (e desvio-padrão) foram: G1 – 93,8 (28,9); G2 – 92,0 (22,3); G3 – 55,2 (21,4); G4 – 92,0 (22,2); G5 – 96,0 (33,9) e G6 – 81,92 (34,3). Houve diferença estatística em relação ao G3 (Análise de Variância e teste de Tukey, com p < 0,01), sem diferença entre G1 e G2. Não houve diferença estatística entre os diferentes meios de inserção (Análise de Variância, p > 0,05). A média de dureza após 1 e 2 semanas foi maior em todos os grupos quando comparada às 24 horas (Análise de Variância, teste de Tukey, p <0,01), e não houve diferença estatística entre 1 e 2 semanas. O material Magic Glass ® apresentou menor média de dureza em relação aos demais, e as diferentes técnicas de inserção não influenciaram na dureza do cimento de ionômero de vidro testado.
Title in English
Knoop hardness of glass ionomer cement used for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART).
Keywords in English
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment
Glass-ionomer cement
Insertion
Knoop hardness
Abstract in English
The aim of this study was to assess the Knoop hardness of glass-ionomer cements used for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) – G1: Ketac TM Molar; G2: Ketac TM Molar Easy Mix (3M ESPE) e G3: Magic Glass ® (Vigodent), and three different ways of insertion of Ketac TM Molar Easy Mix (3M ESPE), then: G4: conventional applier;G5: commercial syringe (Centrix ® ) and G6: low cost syringe (Injex ® insulin – 1ml, with BD needle 1,60 X 40). The materials were dosed and mixed according to the manufacturer's instructions and 10 specimens of each group were prepared in PVC molds, and after 10 minutes, the specimens were stored in lubricant (Paraffin highly liquid, Merck) at 37ºC, for 24 hours. The surfaces were wet polished with 1200 grit paper (Buheler), till the excess was removed. The Knoop hardness was determined a HM-124 hardness tester (Mitutoyo, Japan), with 25 g load and 30 s dwell time, with Knoop indentator. On each specimen five indentations were made and repeated after 1 and 2 weeks while stored under the same conditions. The mean Knoop hardness (and SD) of each group were: G1 – 93,8 (28,9); G2 – 92,0 (22,3); G3 – 55,2 (21,4); G4 – 92,0 (22,2); G5 – 96,0 (33,9) and G6 – 81,92 (34,3). There was significant difference between G3 (ANOVA and Tukey test, p < 0,01), without difference between G1 and G2. There was no difference between the ways of insertion (ANOVA, p > 0,05). The hardness after one and two weeks was higher in all groups when compared to 24 hours (ANOVA, Tukey test, p < 0,01), and was no difference between one and two weeks. The glass-ionomer cement Magic Glass ® showed the lower hardness compared to the others, and the different insertion techniques had no influence on the glass-ionomer cement hardness.
 
WARNING - Viewing this document is conditioned on your acceptance of the following terms of use:
This document is only for private use for research and teaching activities. Reproduction for commercial use is forbidden. This rights cover the whole data about this document as well as its contents. Any uses or copies of this document in whole or in part must include the author's name.
TeseToda.PDF (1.18 Mbytes)
Publishing Date
2005-03-11
 
WARNING: Learn what derived works are clicking here.
All rights of the thesis/dissertation are from the authors
CeTI-SC/STI
Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations of USP. Copyright © 2001-2024. All rights reserved.