Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10316/36356
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorCarrilho, Eunice Virgínia Palmeirão-
dc.contributor.advisorPaula, Anabela Baptista Pereira-
dc.contributor.authorLeal, Andreia Filipa Sousa-
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-24T09:17:24Z-
dc.date.available2017-01-24T09:17:24Z-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10316/36356-
dc.descriptionTrabalho final do 5º ano com vista à atribuição do grau de mestre no âmbito do ciclo de estudos de Mestrado Integrado em Medicina Dentária apresentado à Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Coimbra.por
dc.description.abstractAims: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the surface roughness and microhardness of a recent nanohybrid composite, SonicFill™ (Kerr Corporation, Orange, USA), and compare it with another nanofilled, Filtek™ Supreme (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) after the submission of both to the action of two bleaching agents: 10% carbamide peroxide and 35% hydrogen peroxide. Methods and materials: Sixty cylindrical specimens (10mmx2mm) of each composite were prepared and stored in artificial saliva at 37⁰C for 24 hours. The specimens were then polished and stored in artificial saliva at 37⁰C. After 24 hours, specimens were divided into 6 groups (n=20). Groups 1, 2: stored in artificial saliva. Groups 3, 4: 10% carbamide peroxide. Groups 5, 6: 35% hydrogen peroxide with LED lamp activation. 24 hours after treatments, specimens went through 500 cycles of thermocycling between 5ºC and 55ºC with a dwell time of 30 seconds. A mechanical roughness tester was employed to measure the surface roughness parameters and the Vickers test to measure microhardness on the top surface of each specimen. One-Way-ANOVA, Tukey and Bonferroni methods with a significance level of 5% were used for the statistical analysis. Results: For SonicFill™, there was no statistically significant difference in microhardness between the control group (1) and the bleached groups (3, 5). However there was difference between home bleaching (group 3) and in-office treatment (group 5). For Filtek Supreme XTE™ there was no significant difference in microhardness among all groups. In case of roughness, there was no significant difference in roughness average (Ra) and root mean square roughness (Rq) among all groups. The mean roughness depth (Rz) parameter showed no statistically significant differences among all groups for SonicFill™ but, in Filtek Supreme XTE™ there was a significant increase between control (group 2) and bleaching treatments (groups 4, 6). Roughness skewness (Rsk) showed no statistically significant differences among all groups for SonicFill™ and Filtek Supreme XTE™, except for groups 2 and 4, where the Rsk increased with CP. Conclusion: The microhardness of Filtek Supreme XTE™ and SonicFill™ is not affected by bleaching treatments. Both bleaching treatments affect Rz of Filtek Supreme XTE™ groups, in contrast to the SonicFill™ groups. The carbamide peroxide 10% treatment affects the Rsk of group Filtek Supreme XTE™ with no significant effect in the SonicFill™ group.por
dc.language.isoengpor
dc.rightsopenAccesspor
dc.subjectTooth bleachingpor
dc.subjectResin compositepor
dc.subjectRoughnesspor
dc.subjectMicrohardnesspor
dc.titleComposites roughness and microhardness after different bleaching techniquespor
dc.typemasterThesispor
thesis.degree.nameMestrado Integrado em Medicina Dentáriapor
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.fulltextCom Texto completo-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.advisor.orcid0000-0002-5759-5557-
Appears in Collections:FMUC Med. Dentária - Teses de Mestrado
UC - Dissertações de Mestrado
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
Tese FINAL.pdfTese FINAL904.74 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

215
checked on Sep 27, 2022

Download(s)

227
checked on Sep 27, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.