DeterminaciĆ³n del protocolo de cementaciĆ³n ideal para restauraciones de resinas indirectas
Cargando...
Archivos
Fecha
2013
Autores
Profesor/a GuĆa
Facultad/escuela
Idioma
es
TĆtulo de la revista
ISSN de la revista
TĆtulo del volumen
Editor
Universidad AndrƩs Bello
Nombre de Curso
Licencia CC
Licencia CC
Resumen
Las resinas indirectas son una alternativa estƩtica
para restauraciones de mayor envergadura, ofreciendo mejores propiedades Ć³pticas y
mecĆ”nicas que las resinas directas. Su cementaciĆ³n es un proceso crĆtico en directa
relaciĆ³n con el grado de filtraciĆ³n marginal y longevidad. A pesar de esto, no existe un
consenso sobre cuĆ”l es el protocolo Ć³ptimo para adherirlas al diente en lo que a
tratamiento de superficie se refiere. Este estudio tiene por finalidad medir los diferentes
valores de adhesiĆ³n, frente a distintos acondicionamientos, previo a una cementaciĆ³n
adhesiva de una resina compuesta de laboratorio. MĆ©todo. Es un estudio experimental
in-vitro. La muestra es intencionada por conveniencia, y se compone de 80 bloques de
resina divididos en 4 grupos de acuerdo al tratamiento de superficie: 1- control. II- arenado
con cuarzo de 50Āµm por 10s. III. AplicaciĆ³n de silano. IV. Arenado + Silano. Tras el
acondicionamiento se aplicĆ³ un cemento de resina autoadhesivo y se sometieron a la
prueba de microcizalla a una tasa de 1 mm/min. El anĆ”lisis de datos se realizĆ³ en el
programa estadĆstico IBM SPSS Statistics. Para el anĆ”lisis inferencia! se utilizĆ³ la prueba
ANOVA seguido de pruebas de comparaciĆ³n mĆŗltiple T3 Dunnett y Games-Howell.
Resultados. Todo acondicionamiento de superficie tiene efectos significativos sobre el
grupo control (p<0.05). Arenado es significativamente mayor que silano por sĆ solos
(p<0.05). Conclusiones. Toda resina indirecta debe tener un acondicionamiento previo
a su cementaciĆ³n. El protocolo de cementaciĆ³n debe incluir un arenado previo. El silano
no afecta ni aumenta la adhesiĆ³n lograda con un arenado.
lntroduction. lndirect resins are an aesthetic alternative for larger restorations, offering better optical and mechanical properties that direct resins. Their cementation is a critical process affecting the degree of marginal leakage and longevity. Despite this, there is still no consensus about which is the optimal surface treatment protocol prior to adhering to the tooth. This study aims to measure different adhesion values, in response to various surface treatments, prior to an adhesive cementation of an indirect resin composite. Method. it's an in-vitre experimental study. The sample is intended by convenience, and consists of 80 resin blocks divided into 4 groups according to surface treatment: I- control. II - sandblasting with 50Āµm quartz by 10s. III. Conditioning with silane. IV. Sandblasting + Silane. After conditioning, a universal cement was applied, and block samples were subjected to a micro-shear test at a rate of 1 mm/min. Data processing was performed in the statistical program SPSS Statistics 22. For inferential analysis was used ANOVA, followed by multiple comparison tests Dunnett's T3 and Games- Howell. Results. All surface treatments had significant effects compared with the control group (p < 0.05). Sandblasting values are significantly greater than the silane group (p < 0.05). Conclusions. All indirect resin composites must have a surface treatment prior to cementation. When cementing indirect resins, sandblasting should be included. Using silane after sandblast doesn't affect adhesion values.
lntroduction. lndirect resins are an aesthetic alternative for larger restorations, offering better optical and mechanical properties that direct resins. Their cementation is a critical process affecting the degree of marginal leakage and longevity. Despite this, there is still no consensus about which is the optimal surface treatment protocol prior to adhering to the tooth. This study aims to measure different adhesion values, in response to various surface treatments, prior to an adhesive cementation of an indirect resin composite. Method. it's an in-vitre experimental study. The sample is intended by convenience, and consists of 80 resin blocks divided into 4 groups according to surface treatment: I- control. II - sandblasting with 50Āµm quartz by 10s. III. Conditioning with silane. IV. Sandblasting + Silane. After conditioning, a universal cement was applied, and block samples were subjected to a micro-shear test at a rate of 1 mm/min. Data processing was performed in the statistical program SPSS Statistics 22. For inferential analysis was used ANOVA, followed by multiple comparison tests Dunnett's T3 and Games- Howell. Results. All surface treatments had significant effects compared with the control group (p < 0.05). Sandblasting values are significantly greater than the silane group (p < 0.05). Conclusions. All indirect resin composites must have a surface treatment prior to cementation. When cementing indirect resins, sandblasting should be included. Using silane after sandblast doesn't affect adhesion values.
Notas
Tesis (Cirujano Dentista, EspecializaciĆ³n en ClĆnica Integral del Adulto)
Palabras clave
Materiales Dentales, CementaciĆ³n, Chile