You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/130846
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMiranda, Carolina Baptista-
dc.contributor.authorPagani, Clóvis-
dc.contributor.authorBottino, Marco Cícero-
dc.contributor.authorBenetti, Ana Raquel-
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-07T15:29:44Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T21:22:08Z-
dc.date.available2015-12-07T15:29:44Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T21:22:08Z-
dc.date.issued2003-
dc.identifierhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21409330-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Applied Oral Science: Revista Fob, v. 11, n. 2, p. 157-161, 2003.-
dc.identifier.issn1678-7757-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/130846-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/130846-
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to compare the microhardness of four indirect composite resins. Forty cylindrical samples were prepared according to the manufacturer s recommendations using a Teflon mold. Ten specimens were produced from each tested material, constituting four groups (n=10) as follows: G1 - Artglass; G2 - Sinfony; G3 - Solidex; G4 - Targis. Microhardness was determined by the Vickers indentation technique with a load of 300g for 10 seconds. Four indentations were made on each sample, determining the mean microhardness values for each specimen. Descriptive statistics data for the experimental conditions were: G1 - Artglass (mean ±standard deviation: 55.26 ± 1.15HVN; median: 52.6); G2 - Sinfony (31.22 ± 0.65HVN; 31.30); G3 - Solidex (52.25 ± 1.55HVN; 52.60); G4 - Targis (72.14 ± 2.82HVN; 73.30). An exploratory data analysis was performed to determine the most appropriate statistical test through: (I) Levene's for homogeneity of variances; (II) ANOVA on ranks (Kruskal-Wallis); (III) Dunn's multiple comparison test (0.05). Targis presented the highest microhardness values while Sinfony presented the lowest. Artglass and Solidex were found as intermediate materials. These results indicate that distinct mechanical properties may be observed at specific materials. The composition of each material as well as variations on polymerization methods are possibly responsibles for the difference found in microhardness. Therefore, indirect composite resin materials that guarantee both good esthetics and adequate mechanical properties may be considered as substitutes of natural teeth.en
dc.format.extent157-161-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherJournal of Applied Oral Science: Revista Fob-
dc.sourcePubMed-
dc.titleA comparison of microhardness of indirect composite restorative materialsen
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.description.affiliationInstituto de Ciência e Tecnologia (ICT), Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), São José dos Campos, SP, Brasil-
dc.description.affiliationUnespInstituto de Ciência e Tecnologia (ICT), Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), São José dos Campos, SP, Brasil-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Applied Oral Science: Revista Fob-
dc.identifier.pubmed21409330-
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.