http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Gurgel-Filho, Eduardo Diogo (검색결과 3 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Push-out bond strength of a self-adhesive resin cement used as endodontic sealer
Gurgel-Filho, Eduardo Diogo,Lima, Felipe Coelho,Saboia, Vicente De Paula Aragao,Coutinho-Filho, Tauby De Souza,Neves, Aline De Almeida,da Silva, Emmanuel Joao Nogueira Leal The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2014 Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics Vol.39 No.4
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to investigate the bond strength of RelyX Unicem (3M) to root canal dentin when used as an endodontic sealer. Materials and Methods: Samples of 24 single-rooted teeth were prepared with Gates Glidden drills and K3 files. After that, the roots were randomly assigned to three experimental groups (n = 8) according to the filling material, (1) AH Plus (Dentsply De Trey GmbH)/Gutta-Percha cone; (2) Epiphany SE (Pentron)/Resilon cone; (3) RelyX Unicem/Gutta-Percha cone. All roots were filled using a single cone technique associated to vertical condensation. After the filling procedures, each tooth was prepared for a push-out bond strenght test by cutting 1 mm-thick root slices. Loading was performed on a universal testing machine at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey test for multiple comparisons were used to compare the results among the experimental groups. Results: Epiphany SE/Resilon showed significantly lower push-out bond strength than both AH Plus/Gutta-Percha and RelyX Unicem/Gutta-Percha (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in bond strength between AH Plus/Gutta-Percha and RelyX Unicem/Gutta-Percha (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Under the present in vitro conditions, bond strength to root dentin promoted by RelyX Unicem was similar to AH Plus. Epiphany SE/Resilon resulted in lower bond strength values when compared to both materials.
-
Push-out bond strength of a self-adhesive resin cement used as endodontic sealer
Eduardo Diogo Gurgel-Filho,Felipe Coelho Lima,Vicente de Paula Aragão Saboia,Tauby de Souza Coutinho-Filho,Aline de Almeida Neves,Emmanuel João Nogueira Leal da Silva 대한치과보존학회 2014 Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics Vol.39 No.4
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to investigate the bond strength of RelyX Unicem (3M) to root canal dentin when used as an endodontic sealer. Materials and Methods: Samples of 24 single-rooted teeth were prepared with Gates Glidden drills and K3 files. After that, the roots were randomly assigned to three experimental groups (n = 8) according to the filling material, (1) AH Plus (Dentsply De Trey GmbH)/ Gutta-Percha cone; (2) Epiphany SE (Pentron)/Resilon cone; (3) RelyX Unicem/Gutta- Percha cone. All roots were filled using a single cone technique associated to vertical condensation. After the filling procedures, each tooth was prepared for a push-out bond strenght test by cutting 1 mm-thick root slices. Loading was performed on a universal testing machine at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey test for multiple comparisons were used to compare the results among the experimental groups. Results: Epiphany SE/Resilon showed significantly lower pushout bond strength than both AH Plus/Gutta-Percha and RelyX Unicem/Gutta-Percha (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in bond strength between AH Plus/Gutta- Percha and RelyX Unicem/Gutta-Percha (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Under the present in vitro conditions, bond strength to root dentin promoted by RelyX Unicem was similar to AH Plus. Epiphany SE/Resilon resulted in lower bond strength values when compared to both materials.
-
Silva Julianne Coelho,Cetira Filho Edson Luiz,Silva Paulo Goberlânio de Barros,Costa Fábio Wildson Gurgel,Saboia Vicente de Paulo Aragão 대한치과보존학회 2022 Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics Vol.47 No.2
Objectives The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of collagen cross-linking agents (CCLAs) used in combination with the adhesive technique in restorative procedures. Materials and Methods In this systematic review, the authors followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. An electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and DOSS, up to October 2020. The gray literature was also researched. Only randomized clinical trials were selected. Results The selection process yielded 3 studies from the 838 retrieved. The addition of CCLAs in the retention of restorations increased the number of events. The postoperative sensitivity scores and marginal adaptation scores showed no significant difference between the CCLA and control groups, and the marginal pigmentation scores showed a significant increase in the CCLA group. There were no caries events in any group throughout the evaluation period. Conclusions This systematic review showed that there is no clinical efficacy to justify the use of CCLAs in the protocols performed. Objectives The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of collagen cross-linking agents (CCLAs) used in combination with the adhesive technique in restorative procedures. Materials and Methods In this systematic review, the authors followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. An electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and DOSS, up to October 2020. The gray literature was also researched. Only randomized clinical trials were selected. Results The selection process yielded 3 studies from the 838 retrieved. The addition of CCLAs in the retention of restorations increased the number of events. The postoperative sensitivity scores and marginal adaptation scores showed no significant difference between the CCLA and control groups, and the marginal pigmentation scores showed a significant increase in the CCLA group. There were no caries events in any group throughout the evaluation period. Conclusions This systematic review showed that there is no clinical efficacy to justify the use of CCLAs in the protocols performed.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
