You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAnami, Lilian Costa-
dc.contributor.authorPereira, Cristiane Aparecida-
dc.contributor.authorGuerra, Elen-
dc.contributor.authorde Assuncao e Souza, Rodrigo Othavio-
dc.contributor.authorCardoso Jorge, Antonio Olavo-
dc.contributor.authorBottino, Marco Antonio-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Dentistry. Oxford: Elsevier B.V., v. 40, n. 9, p. 742-749, 2012.-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To evaluate the influence of different protocols for resin cement removal during cementation on biofilm formation.Methods: Twenty-eight ceramic blocks, which were injected under pressure, were placed over enamel blocks obtained from freshly extracted bovine incisors. The ceramic blocks were cemented to the enamel blocks using a dual-cured resin cement and the excess resin was removed according to the experimental group: TS: Teflon spatula; BR: brush; BR+: brush and polishing; SB+: scalpel blade and polishing. After autoclaving, the samples were colonised by incubation in a sucrose broth suspension standardised with Streptococcus mutans in microaerophilic stove. Specimens were quantitatively analysed for bacterial adherence at the adhesive interface using confocal laser scanning microscopy and counting the colony forming units, and qualitatively analysed using SEM. The roughness (Ra/Rz/RSm) was also analysed. Data were analysed by 1-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (5%).Results: The roughness values ranged from 0.96 to 1.69 mu m for Ra (p > 0.05), from 11.59 to 22.80 mu m for Rz (p = 0.02 < 0.05) and from 293.2 to 534.3 mu m for RSm (p = 0.00). Bacterial adhesion varied between 1,974,000 and 2,814,000 CFU/ml (p = 0.00). Biofilm mean thickness ranged from 0.477 and 0.556 mu m (p > 0.05), whilst the biovolume values were between 0.388 and 0.547 mu m(3)/mu m(2) (p = 0.04). Lower values for roughness, bacterial adhesion, biofilm thickness and biovolume were found with BR, whilst TS presented the highest values for most of the parameters. SEM images confirmed the quantitative values.Conclusions: The restoration margin morphology and interface roughness affects bacterial accumulation. The brush technique promoted less bacterial colonisation at the adhesive interface than did the other removal methods.Clinical significance: The brush technique seems to be a good option for removing the excess resin cement after adhesive cementation in clinical practice, as indicated by its better results with lower bacterial colonisation. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en
dc.publisherElsevier B.V.-
dc.sourceWeb of Science-
dc.subjectBacterial colonisationen
dc.subjectRemoval techniquesen
dc.subjectRestoration marginen
dc.titleMorphology and bacterial colonisation of tooth/ceramic restoration interface after different cement excess removal techniquesen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB)-
dc.description.affiliationSão Paulo State Univ UNESP SJC, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, São Paulo, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationSão Paulo State Univ UNESP SJC, Dept Oral Biopathol, São Paulo, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationFed Univ Paraiba UFPB, Dept Restorat Dent, Div Prosthodont, Joao Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUnespSão Paulo State Univ UNESP SJC, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, São Paulo, Brazil-
dc.description.affiliationUnespSão Paulo State Univ UNESP SJC, Dept Oral Biopathol, São Paulo, Brazil-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Dentistry-
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.