No abstract

As cerâmicas dentais são conhecidas pela sua excelência em reproduzir artificialmente os dentes naturais. No século XVIII foi empregada pela primeira vez na Odontologia como dente artificial para próteses totais. A partir do século XX passou a ser utilizada para a confecção de restaurações metalocerâmicas e mais recentemente, com o aprimoramento da tecnologia cerâmica, surgiram as restaurações livres de metal. As cerâmicas têm apresentado rápida evolução em âmbito científico com o intuito de melhorar suas propriedades físicas e mecânicas para suprir as necessidades estéticas que são cada vez mais exigidas pela sociedade moderna. Nesse contexto, é preciso conhecer cada sistema cerâmico disponível atualmente no mercado, desde suas principais características até suas limitações, para saber indicá-lo de modo correto em cada situação clínica específica.

Microwave energy has been used as an alternative method for disinfection and sterilization of dental prostheses. This study evaluated the influence of microwave treatment on dimensional accuracy along the posterior palatal border of maxillary acrylic resin denture bases processed by water-bath curing. Thirty maxillary acrylic bases (3-mm-thick) were made on cast models with Clássico acrylic resin using routine technique. After polymerization and cooling, the sets were deflasked and the bases were stored in water for 30 days. Thereafter, the specimens were assigned to 3 groups (n=10), as follows: group I (control) was not submitted to any disinfection cycle; group II was submitted to microwave disinfection for 3 min at 500 W; and in group III microwaving was done for 10 min at 604 W. The acrylic bases were fixed on their respective casts with instant adhesive (Super Bonder ® ) and the base/cast sets were sectioned transversally in the posterior palatal zone. The existence of gaps between the casts and acrylic bases was assessed using a profile projector at 5 points. No statistically significant differences were observed between the control group and group II. However, group III differed statistically from the others (p<0.05). Treatment in microwave oven at 604 W for 10 min produced the greatest discrepancies in the adaptation of maxillary acrylic resin denture bases to the stone casts.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

PURPOSE. The aim was to evaluate the effect of four acidic beverages on the roughness (Ra) and color change (ΔE ab) of two brands of artificial teeth and a heat-polymerized acrylic resin (HPAR) for use in a prosthetic base. MATERIALS AND METHODS. All materials were divided into 5 groups, according to the used acidic beverage (artificial saliva-control, red wine, orange juice, coke-based, and lemon juice-based soft drink). The immersion process was divided into two stages: T1-immersion in the acidic solutions for 10 minutes for 14 days; T2-after T1, the samples were immersed in grape juice for 14 days. The Ra of the samples was evaluated in a rugosimeter and the ΔE ab in a spectrophotometer, before and after the immersions. The analysis of variance of one (ΔE ab) and two factors (Ra) and Tukey were performed (α=.05). RESULTS. There was a statistical difference for roughness after immersion (T1) for Trilux and Tritone teeth, regardless of the acid solution. For Trilux teeth, all acid solutions increased Ra (P<.05). For Tritone teeth, only the coke-based soft drink did not statistically change Ra. Grape juice (T2) altered Ra only of artificial teeth (P<.05). The color was changed for all materials, after T1 and T2. CONCLUSION. In general, the acidic solutions changed the Ra and ΔE ab of HPAR and artificial teeth after T1. The grape juice altered the roughness only of the artificial teeth, promoting a clinically acceptable color change in the materials.

SUMMARY Purpose: The aim of this prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial was to evaluate postoperative sensitivity, clinical performance, and interproximal contacts after using different restorative systems. Methods and Materials: Fifty-three subjects each received three class II restorations according to the restorative systems: conventional resin composite (PA: Peak Universal+Amelogen Plus, Ultradent), low-shrinkage flowable and nanoparticulate resin composites (ABF: Adper Single Bond 2+Filtek Bulk Fill Flow+Filtek Z350XT, 3M ESPE), and low-shrinkage flowable and microhybrid resin composites (XST: XP Bond+SDR+TPH3, Dentsply). Postoperative sensitivity was assessed at 24 hours, seven days, 90 days, and six months. The clinical performance and interproximal contacts were evaluated at baseline, six months, and one year. Friedman, Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests were used to evaluate postoperative sensitivity and interproximal contacts. The equality test of two proportions and logistic regression analysis were used to assess the clinical performance. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed among groups for postoperative sensitivity. The highest spontaneous sensitivity was reported at 24 hours. ABF was the only group that did not present a reduction in cold sensitivity. Color, marginal discoloration, and superficial staining showed differences among the groups. XST did not show superficial staining after one year. No differences were observed among groups in relation to interproximal contacts. XST resulted in the loss of interproximal contact after one year. Conclusions: Different types of restorative systems do not influence postoperative sensitivity; however, ABF maintained cold sensitivity over time. Marginal discoloration occurred for all groups but occurred earliest for PA. XST presented a reduction of interproximal contact after one year of evaluation.