PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Maria Jacinta M Coelho Santos

Publications and source records attributed to Maria Jacinta M Coelho Santos.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive techniques.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored using 2 intracoronal direct and indirect adhesive techniques. METHODS: Forty maxillary premolars were divided randomly into 4 groups of 10: group 1, intact teeth; group 2, mesio-occlusodistal (MOD) cavity preparation associated with endodontic therapy (unrestored); group 3, MOD cavity preparation and restoration with direct composite resin (Z100, 3M ESPE); and group 4, MOD cavity preparation and restoration with indirect ceramic inlay (IPS Empress, Ivoclar-Vivadent). Specimens were subsequently submitted to an axial compression test, using an 8-mm diameter steel ball at a loading speed of 0.5 mm per minute, until their fracture. RESULTS: The average compression force causing cuspal fracture in the 4 experimental groups was group 1, 138.4 kg; group 2, 49.0 kg; group 3, 105.4 kg; and group 4, 82.7 kg. ANOVA analysis and Tukey tests showed that cavity preparation significantly weakened the remaining tooth structure. The fracture resistance of teeth restored using direct composite resin was not significantly different from that of teeth restored with ceramic inlays (p > 0.05). None of the materials tested was able to restore completely the fracture resistance lost during cavity preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Cavity preparation significantly weakens the remaining tooth structure. Direct and indirect intracoronal adhesive restorations can partly restore fracture resistance of teeth weakened by wide cavity preparation.

Aluminum Silicates↗
PubMed2004

Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays made with two systems: a one-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of ceramic inlays and onlays made with two systems: sintered (Duceram [D], DeguDent) and pressable (IPS Empress [IPS], Ivoclar-Vivadent) after 1 year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-four restorations - 37 IPS and 37 D - were cemented in 34 patients. Twenty-four premolars and 50 molars received Class II cavity preparations, totaling 28 onlays and 46 inlays. The restorations were evaluated by two independent investigators at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year, according to modified USPHS criteria. Fisher and McNemar statistical tests were employed to assess the survival rate. RESULTS: After one year, 100% of the restorations were assessed and all the restorations were considered clinically excellent or acceptable. Among the analyzed criteria, only the following received "Bravo" ratings: marginal discoloration: IPS (24.32%), D (13.51%); marginal integrity: IPS (10.81%), D (8.11%); color match: IPS (5.41%), D (5.41%); surface texture: IPS (2.70%), D (10.81%). No "Charlie" or "Delta" scores were given to the restorations. CONCLUSION: Among the analyzed criteria, only marginal discoloration differed statistically significantly from the results of the baseline examination for IPS Empress ceramic restorations (p = 0.008). No significant differences were found between the two ceramics. The two ceramic systems demonstrated excellent clinical performance after a period of 1 year.

Adult↗