You are in the accessibility menu

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/74327
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorOliveira-Junior, Osmir Batista-
dc.contributor.authorBuso, Leonardo-
dc.contributor.authorFujiy, Fabio Hiroshi-
dc.contributor.authorLombardo, Geraldo Henrique Leao-
dc.contributor.authorCampos, Fernanda-
dc.contributor.authorSarmento, Hugo Ramalho-
dc.contributor.authorSouza, Rodrigo Othavio Assuncao-
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-27T11:27:33Z-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-25T18:41:43Z-
dc.date.available2014-05-27T11:27:33Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-25T18:41:43Z-
dc.date.issued2013-01-01-
dc.identifierhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23302371-
dc.identifier.citationGeneral Dentistry, v. 61, n. 1, 2013.-
dc.identifier.issn0363-6771-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/74327-
dc.identifier.urihttp://acervodigital.unesp.br/handle/11449/74327-
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of 2 different surface polishing procedures - glazing (GZ) and manual polishing (MP) - on the roughness of ceramics processed by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and conventional systems (stratification technique). Eighty ceramic discs (diameter: 8 mm, thickness: 1 mm) were prepared and divided among 8 groups (n = 10) according to the type of ceramic disc and polishing method: 4 GZ and 4 MP. Specimens were glazed according to each manufacturer's recommendations. Two silicone polishing points were used on the ceramic surface for manual polishing. Roughness was measured using a surface roughness tester. The roughness measurements were made along a distance of 2 mm on the sample surface and the speed of reading was 0.1 mm/s. Three measurements were taken for each sample. The data (μm) were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test (α = 0.05). Qualitative analysis was performed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The mean (± SD) roughness values obtained for GZ were: 1.1 ± 0.40 μm; 1.0 ± 0.31 μm; 1.6 ± 0.31 μm; and 2.2 ± 0.73 μm. For MP, the mean values were: 0.66 ± 0.13 μm; 0.43 ± 0.14 μm; 1.6 ± 0.55 μm; and 2.0 ± 0.63 μm. The mean roughness values were significantly affected by the ceramic type (P = 0.0001) and polishing technique (P = 0.0047). The SEM images confirmed the roughness data. The manually polished glass CAD/CAM ceramics promoted lower surface roughness than did the glazed feldspathic dental ceramics.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.sourceScopus-
dc.titleInfluence of polishing procedures on the surface roughness of dental ceramics made by different techniquesen
dc.typeoutro-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)-
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB)-
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Sao Paulo State University Araraquara Dental School (UNESP), Araraquara-
dc.description.affiliationSao Jose Dos Campos Dental School Sao Paulo State University, Sao Jose dos Campos-
dc.description.affiliationFederal University of Pelotas (UFPel), Rio Grande do Sul-
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Division of Prosthodontics Federal University of Paraiba (UFPB), Joao Pessoa-
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Sao Paulo State University Araraquara Dental School (UNESP), Araraquara-
dc.description.affiliationUnespSao Jose Dos Campos Dental School Sao Paulo State University, Sao Jose dos Campos-
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito-
dc.relation.ispartofGeneral Dentistry-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84873857727-
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.