Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Cristiane Franco Pinto
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | Piracicaba, SP. |
| Institution: | Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP). Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba |
| Defense date: | 2006-07-28 |
| Examining board members: |
Marcelo Giannini;
Josimeri Hebling Costa;
Reginaldo Bruno Gonçalves
|
| Advisor: | Marcelo Giannini |
| Abstract | |
Anticariogenic and antibacterial components such as fluoride (F-) and bromide (Br -) have been introduced to adhesive systems to improve the clinical longevity. However, these components were not evaluated in high cariogenic challenge. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect these adhesive systems on enamel in two conditions of cariogenic challenge. Study in situ: A crossover and blind study was performed in two phases of 14 days. Volunteers (n=14) wore intra-oral appliance containing four bovine enamel blocks with cavity preparations and restorations with self-etching primers/composite resin: (1) Clearfil SE Bond (SE) or (2) Clearfil Protect Bond (PBI with F- and Br-)/Clearfil AP-X. The volunteers dropped 20% sucrose solution 8x1day and used fluoridated dentifrice 3x1day. Study in vitro: ten bovine enamel blocks with cavity preparations and restorations with adhesives systems/composite resin: 1) SE; 2) PB; Single Bond (SB) and One-up Bond F (OF/ with F-)/Clearfil AP-X. The specimens were submitled to an 8 days pH-cycling regimen simulating caries development. After cariogenic challenge enamel was evaluated to detect caries lesions to crosssectional microhardness (transformed in volume % mineral), polarized light microscopy (PLM) and scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). The statistical analysis were made through split-plot ANOVA and Tukey test to volume % mineral (in situ and in vitro), Student t test to PLM in situ ; one-way ANOVA and Tukey test to PLM in vitro (p<0,05). The results of in situ volume % mineral show the lower mineral loss than adhesive PB when compared with SE in first depth (20I-lm) in ali distances of restoration. However, the PLM analysis did not show statistical differences, but the SEM images showed different caries lesion development. The SEM was observed higher interprismatic enamel demineralization in blocks restored with adhesive SE than PB and the resin-enamel interfaces showed similar morphology. To the in vitro study, the volume % mineral did not shows statistical difference; however PLM showed lower caries lesion extension to adhesive PB. The SEM images showed lower demineralization to interprismatic enamel restored with adhesive PB. The results showed that adhesive PB promoted lower enamel demineralization when submitted to high cariogenic challenge, suggesting a potential to control caries lesion development around restorations (AU) | |