Fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement restorations.

Autor:	Esteves Barata TJ; Department of Operative Dentistry, University of North of Paraná, Brazil., Bresciani E, Cestari Fagundes T, Gigo Cefaly DF, Pereira Lauris JR, Lima Navarro MF
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	American journal of dentistry [Am J Dent] 2008 Jun; Vol. 21 (3), pp. 163-7.
Abstrakt:	Purpose: To investigate in vitro the effect of retentive grooves, GIC type and insertion method on the fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restorations. Methods: Premolars were divided into 12 groups (n = 10) according to three variables: retentive grooves [presence (PR) or absence AR)], GICs type [Ketac-Molar (KM), Fuji VIII (F8) and RelyX Luting (RX)], and insertion method [syringe injector (SI) or spoon excavator (SE)]. The specimens were subjected to fracture resistance test. Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons were performed using a Tukey test (P < 0.05). Results: Mean fracture resistance values (Kgf) +/- standard deviations (SD) were: KM (PR+SI) = 65.66 +/- 2.5; KM (PR+SE) = 62.58 +/- 2.1; KM (AR+SI) = 57.11 +/- 1.9; KM (AR+SE) = 51.94 +/- 2.3; F8 (PR+SI) = 63.05 +/- 2.1; F8 (PR+SE) = 60.12 +/- 2.3; F8 (AR+SI) = 55.11 +/- 1.9; F8(AR+SE) = 49.20 +/- 1.6; RX (PR+SI) = 50.99 +/- 2.4; RX (PR+SE) = 48.81 +/- 2.5; RX (AR+SI) = 45.53 +/- 2.6; RX (AR+SE) = 41.88 +/- 3.0. Statistically significant differences were observed among all the groups tested (P = 0.001). There was significant difference when pooled means for GIC type were compared with retentive grooves (P = 0.01) and when pooled means for retentive grooves were compared with insertion method (P = 0.01).
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu