You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/117247
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHara, A. T.-
dc.contributor.authorTurssi, C. P.-
dc.contributor.authorAndo, M.-
dc.contributor.authorGonzalez-Cabezas, C.-
dc.contributor.authorZero, D. T.-
dc.contributor.authorRodrigues, A. L.-
dc.contributor.authorSerra, Mônica da Costa-
dc.contributor.authorCury, J. A.-
dc.date.accessioned2015-03-18T15:55:38Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T20:34:53Z-
dc.date.available2015-03-18T15:55:38Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T20:34:53Z-
dc.date.issued2006-01-01-
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000094290-
dc.identifier.citationCaries Research. Basel: Karger, v. 40, n. 5, p. 435-439, 2006.-
dc.identifier.issn0008-6568-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/117247-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/117247-
dc.description.abstractThe usefulness of fluoride-releasing restorations in secondary caries prevention may be questioned because of the presence of other common sources of fluoride and because of ageing of the restorations. This study tested the hypothesis that glass-ionomer cement restorations, either aged or unaged, do not prevent secondary root caries, when fluoride dentifrice is frequently used. Sixteen volunteers wore palatal appliances in two phases of 14 days, according to a 2 x 2 crossover design. In each phase the appliance was loaded with bovine root dentine slabs restored with either glass-ionomer or resin composite, either aged or unaged. Specimens were exposed to cariogenic challenge 4 times/day and to fluoridated dentifrice 3 times/day. The fluoride content in the biofilm (FB) formed on slabs and the mineral loss (Delta Z) around the restorations were analysed. No differences were found between restorative materials regarding the FB and the Delta Z, for either aged (p = 0.792 and p = 0.645, respectively) or unaged (p = 1.00 and p = 0.278, respectively) groups. Under the cariogenic and fluoride dentifrice exposure conditions of this study, the glass-ionomer restoration, either aged or unaged, did not provide additional protection against secondary root caries. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.en
dc.format.extent435-439-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherKarger-
dc.sourceWeb of Science-
dc.subjectglass-ionomer cementen
dc.subjectroot cariesen
dc.subjectsecondary cariesen
dc.titleInfluence of fluoride-releasing restorative material on root dentine secondary caries in situen
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionIndiana Univ-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.description.affiliationIndiana Univ, Sch Dent, Oral Hlth Res Inst, Indianapolis, IN 46204 USA-
dc.description.affiliationUniv Estadual Campinas, Fac Dent, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUniv Sao Paulo, Sch Med Ribeirao Preto, Clin Hosp, Sao Paulo, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationState Univ Sao Paulo, Fac Dent Ribeirao Preto, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUnespState Univ Sao Paulo, Fac Dent Ribeirao Preto, Ribeirao Preto, Brazil-
dc.identifier.doi10.1159/000094290-
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000240327800013-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofCaries Research-
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.