| Full text | |
| Author(s): |
Flávia B. Pazinatto
[1]
;
Fernanda A. Lopes
[2]
;
Luiz Marquezini Junior
[3]
;
Fabrício L. A. de Castro
[4]
;
Maria Teresa Atta
[5]
Total Authors: 5
|
| Affiliation: | [1] University of São Paulo. Bauru School of Dentistry. Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials - Brasil
[2] University of São Paulo. Bauru School of Dentistry. Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials - Brasil
[3] University of São Paulo. Bauru School of Dentistry. Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials - Brasil
[4] Federal University of Goiás. School of Dentistry. Department of Prevention and Oral Rehabilitation - Brasil
[5] University of São Paulo. Bauru School of Dentistry. Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials - Brasil
Total Affiliations: 5
|
| Document type: | Journal article |
| Source: | Journal of Applied Oral Science; v. 14, n. 6, p. 393-398, 2006-12-00. |
| Abstract | |
OBJECTIVES: To determine the roughness of glass surfaces submitted to different treatments and to correlate it with the spreading velocity of two adhesive systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Glass slides were used as substrates to evaluate the spreading velocity of Single Bond and Prime & Bond NT adhesive systems. Six different surface treatments were compared: 1) no treatment; 2) silanization (SL); 3) sandblasting (SB); 4) SB + SL; 5) 10% hydrofluoric acid treatment (HF); 6) HF + SL. Before and after treatments, surface roughness was measured by a profilometer (Ra, µm). Drop volumes (10 µl) of the adhesive systems were deposited onto substrates with a micropipette to observe materials spreading during 30s. Data were expressed in mm/s as spreading velocity. Statistical significances among groups were analyzed using one-way and two-way-ANOVA designs and the SNK test. RESULTS: Significant differences in spreading velocity were found between materials (p < 0.001) and among treatments (p < 0.001). Silanization decreased the spreading velocity for both adhesives in comparison to groups where it was not performed (p < 0.05). Differences in roughness were found only for SB surfaces that were rougher than the others (p < 0.05). Silanization decreased the roughness of SB surfaces (p < 0.05). Linear regression did not indicate any correlation between spreading velocity and roughness (R = 0.173). CONCLUSION: Although surface treatments yielded different roughness, they did not provide differences in the spreading velocity of the simplified bonding systems studied. Silanization decreased bonding systems' spreading velocities. (AU) | |