You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/125904
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPorto, Thiago Soares-
dc.contributor.authorTonetto, Mateus Rodrigues-
dc.contributor.authorLorenzetti, Camila Cruz-
dc.contributor.authorBandéca, Matheus Coelho-
dc.contributor.authorBorges, Alvaro Henrique-
dc.contributor.authorPorto Neto, Sizenando de Toledo-
dc.contributor.authorCampos, Edson Alves de-
dc.contributor.authorDinelli, Wellington-
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-06T16:13:25Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T20:53:57Z-
dc.date.available2015-08-06T16:13:25Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T20:53:57Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifierhttp://www.jaypeejournals.com/eJournals/Abstract.aspx?id=5678&AID=15&num=2-
dc.identifier.citationWorld Journal of Dentistry, v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-5, 2014.-
dc.identifier.issn0976-6006-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/125904-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/125904-
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness of 5 indirect restorative materials treated with hydrofluoric acid to 10%, with aluminum oxide jet and a combination of both. The specimens was prepared with 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm thickness, divided into fi ve groups: (1) Ceromer (CeseadII-Kuraray), (2) Leucite crystals ceramics (IPS EmpressIIIvoclarforcasket), (3) glass ceramic with fluorapatite (IPS D. Sign-Ivoclar), (4) lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS Empress II-Ivoclar restorations), (5) ceramics (Cergogold-Degussa). For all groups were performed the controls, and the surfaces with the 3 types of treatment. For testing roughness used the rugosimeter Taylor/Hobson-Precision, model form tracerSV-C525 high sensitivity. After confi rmation of variance analysis with a signifi cance level of 1% (p < 0.01), there was equality between the average roughness of materials from groups 1, 3 and 5, and the group 2 was different from the others. It was also found that the ceramics of the group 5 behaved similar to group 4. However the lowest average roughness was observed in group 2 ceramic. In the evaluation between the types of treatment, the aluminum oxide jet and associations and blasting with hydrofl uoric acid were similar, and different isolated hydrofl uoric acid, and 3 types of treatment signifi cantly higher than the control group. All treatments promoted superfi cial alterations in all tested materials.en
dc.format.extent1-5-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.sourceCurrículo Lattes-
dc.subjectLaboratory researchen
dc.subjectHydrofluoric aciden
dc.subjectAluminum oxideen
dc.titleSurface roughness analysis of dental ceramics treated with hydrofl uoric acid and aluminum oxide jeten
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Ceuma-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de Cuiabá (UNIC)-
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade Ceuma, Departamento de Pós-graduação em Odontologia-
dc.description.affiliationUniversidade de Cuiabá, Departamento de Ciências Odontológicas Integradas-
dc.description.affiliationUnespUniversidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Faculdade de Odontologia de Araraquara-
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1248-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso aberto-
dc.relation.ispartofWorld Journal of Dentistry-
dc.identifier.lattes7751829021886075-
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.