RESUMO
Objetivo: Este estudo avaliou a influência do eugenol residual a resistência à tração na cimentação decoroas cerômero, usando cimento resinoso. Material e Métodos: Trinta e nove terceiros molares foram preparados para coroa total. Para cada dente preparado uma restauração provisória e uma coroa de cerômero foram feitas. Os dentes foram divididos em três grupos de acordo com o cimento provisório (n = 13): [GTB]Temp de Bond; [GTBNE] Temp NE Bond e [GDY] Dycal. Após a cimentação temporária, os dentes foram mantidos em água destilada por uma semana e, em seguida, submetidos ao teste de tração em uma máquina universal de ensaios (EMIC DL 500), usando uma célula de carga 200 kgf em 0,5 mm/min. Após o teste, os dentes foram limpos e receberam a cimentação adesiva final das coroas de cerômero. Em seguida, as amostras foram mantidas em água destilada (37 ºC) durante uma semana e, em seguida, foi realizado o teste de resistência à tração, também a 0,5 mm/ min. A comparação entre grupos foi realizada por análise de variância (ANOVA)seguida pelo teste de Tukey (p < 0,05). Resultados: Os resultados (kgf) de cimentação provisória para grupos GTB, GTBNE e GDY foram respectivamente: 2,75 ± (1.35b), 3,43 ± (1.66ab), e 4,48 ± (1.11a).Os resultados da cimentação adesiva (Kgf) eram respectivamente: 42,71 ± (15.33b), 57,59 ± (15.66a),e 54,75 ± (15.28ab). Conclusão: Concluiu-se que o cimento temporário, contendo eugenol apresentou influência negativa sobre a resistência à remoção de coroas cimentados com cimento de resinoso. Além disso, o dycal apresentou melhor resistência à remoção.
Objectives: This study evaluated the influenceof residual eugenol on the tensile strength in the ceromer crowns cementation, using resin cement. Material and Methods: Thirty-nine third molarswere prepared for a full crown. For each prepared tooth one provisional and one ceromer crown were made. The teeth were divided into three groups according the temporary cement (n = 13): [GT]Temp Bond; [GTBNE] Temp Bond NE and [GDY]Dycal. After temporary cementation, the teeth were kept in distilled water for one week and then submitted to traction test in a universal testing machine (EMIC DL 500), using a 200 Kgf loadcell at 0.5 mm/min. After the test, the teeth werecleaned and received the final adhesive cementationof ceromer crowns. Next, the specimens were keptin distilled water (37 0C) for a week and then the tensile strength test was performed, also at 0.5 mm/min. The comparison among groups was carriedout by variance analysis (ANOVA) followed by theTukey test (p ≤ 0.05). Results: The results (Kgf)of provisional cementation for groups GTB, GTBNEand GDY were respectively: 2.75 ± (1.35b), 3.43± (1.66ab), and 4.48 ± (1.11a). The results of the adhesive cementation (Kgf) were respectively:42.71 ± (15.33b), 57.59 ± (15.66a), and 54.75 ±(15.28ab). Conclusion: It was concluded that the temporary cement containing eugenol presented negative influence on the removal resistance of crowns cemented with resin cement. Furthermore,dycal presented best result for removal resistance.
Assuntos
Humanos , Cemento Dentário , Eugenol , Resistência à Tração , Coroas , Dente SerotinoRESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate the bond strength between human dentin and composites, using two light-activated single-bottle total-etch adhesive systems with different pHs combined with chemically activated and light-activated-composites. The tested hypothesis was that the dentin bond strength is not influenced by an adhesive system of low pH, combined with chemically activated or light-activated composites. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Flat dentin surfaces of twenty-eight human third molars were allocated in 4 groups (n=7), depending on the adhesive system: (One Step Plus-OS and Prime & Bond NT-PB) and composite (light-activated Filtek Z-100 [Z100] and chemically activated Bisfil 2B [B2B]). Each adhesive system was applied on acid-etched dentin and then one of the composites was added to form a 5 mm-high resin block. The specimens were stored in tap water (37°C/24 h) and sectioned into two axes, x and y. This was done with a diamond disk under coolant irrigation to obtain beams with a cross-section area of approximately 0.8 mm². Each specimen was then attached to a custom-made device and submitted to the microtensile test (1 mm.min-1). Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p<0.05). RESULTS: The anticipated hypothesis was not confirmed (p<0.0001). The bond strengths (MPa) were not statistically different between the two adhesive systems when light-activated composite was used (OS+Z100 = 24.7±7.1ª; PB+Z100 = 23.8±5.7ª). However, with use of the chemically activated composite (B2B), PB (7.8±3.6b MPa) showed significantly lower dentin bond strengths than OS (32.2±7.6ª). CONCLUSION: The low pH of the adhesive system can affect the bond of chemically activated composite to dentin. On the other hand, under the present conditions, the low pH did not seem to affect the bond of light-activated composites to dentin significantly.