You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/117126
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHara, A. T.-
dc.contributor.authorQueiroz, C. S.-
dc.contributor.authorFreitas, P. M.-
dc.contributor.authorGiannini, M.-
dc.contributor.authorSerra, Mônica da Costa-
dc.contributor.authorCury, J. A.-
dc.date.accessioned2015-03-18T15:55:14Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T20:32:52Z-
dc.date.available2015-03-18T15:55:14Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T20:32:52Z-
dc.date.issued2005-06-01-
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00214.x-
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Journal Of Oral Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, v. 113, n. 3, p. 245-250, 2005.-
dc.identifier.issn0909-8836-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/117126-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/117126-
dc.description.abstractThis study tested the fluoride-release rate and the root caries inhibitory effect of dental adhesives. In phase 1, the fluoride released from samples (n = 5) of the adhesives A (Optibond Solo), B (One-up Bond F), C (Prime & Bond NT), D (Tenure Quick), and also of the controls [+] (glass-ionomer cement) and [-] (non-fluoride releasing adhesive), was quantified on a daily basis during a pH-cycling, caries-simulating phenomenon. In phase 2, restorations were made in bovine root dentine slabs (n = 16) with the same adhesives associated with a non-fluoridated composite. Control [+] restorations were made entirely with glass-ionomer cement. Specimens were thermocycled and submitted to the pH-cycling regimen. Demineralization areas and the presence of the wall lesion (WL) and the inhibition zone (IZ) were determined by polarizing light microscopy in dentine adjacent to the restoration. The highest concentration of fluoride was released by the control [+]; adhesives A, B and C, also released fluoride. No detectable amount of fluoride was released by D or [-]. Smaller areas of demineralization were found with control [+], whereas the demineralization areas of adhesives A-D and [-] did not differ from each other. No WL was detected, and higher percentages of IZ were recorded to [+] and to adhesive A. Although some dental adhesives were able to release fluoride, they could not inhibit secondary caries development as well as the glass-ionomer cement.en
dc.format.extent245-250-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing-
dc.sourceWeb of Science-
dc.subjectcariostatic effecten
dc.subjectdental adhesivesen
dc.subjectfluoride releasingen
dc.subjectroot cariesen
dc.titleFluoride release and secondary caries inhibition by adhesive systems on root dentineen
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.description.affiliationState Univ Campinas, Fac Dent Piracicaba, Dept Restorat Dent, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationState Univ Campinas, Fac Dent Piracicaba, Dept Physiol Sci, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationState Univ Sao Paulo, Fac Dent Ribeirao Preto, Dept Restorat Dent, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUnespState Univ Sao Paulo, Fac Dent Ribeirao Preto, Dept Restorat Dent, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0722.2005.00214.x-
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000229703200009-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal Of Oral Sciences-
Appears in Collections:Artigos, TCCs, Teses e Dissertações da Unesp

There are no files associated with this item.
 

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