Arana BJF, Cisneros ÁM

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 27
Paginas: 73-81
Archivo PDF: 440.91 Kb.

RESUMEN

El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar y comparar el efecto de la bebida carbonatada en la microdureza superficial de dos materiales acrílicos utilizados para confeccionar restauraciones provisionales. El estudio fue experimental in vitro. Se confeccionaron 40 bloques de resinas acrílicas utilizadas en provisorios, 20 de Alike^® (GC AMERICA INC., Lote 1712161) y 20 de Acryptemp^® (Zhermack S.P.A., Lote 302334). Posterior a ello, se sumergió los bloques en agua destilada por 24 horas. Pasado este tiempo se procedió a medir la microdureza superficial inicial. Luego las 20 muestras del grupo experimental se sumergieron en una bebida carbonatada (coca cola-gaseosa) durante 12 minutos por día, durante 5 días. Por último se midió la microdureza superficial final mediante el microdurómetro de Vickers. Se utilizaron medidas de tendencia central, dispersión y se realizaron la prueba t de Student y ANOVA. Se encontró una microdureza superficial media de 8,8 y 7,2HV para el grupo de resina PMMA (Inicial y final respectivamente), y 9,5 y 8HV para el grupo de bisacrilato. Se halló diferencias estadísticamente significativas al comparar el inicio y final de cada grupo y al comparar los dos materiales. La resina acrílica de polimetilmetacrilato (Alike^® GC AMERICA INC.) presentó mayor microdureza superficial en comparación con la resina bis acrílica (Acrytemp^® Zhermack S.P.A), después de ser expuestas a una bebida carbonatada.

REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

1. Lee S., Lai Y., Hsu T. Influence of polymerization conditions on monomer elution and microhardness of autopolymerized polymethyl methacrylate resin. Eur J Oral Sci. abril de 2002; 110 (2): 179-83.

2. Mickeviciute E., Ivanauskiene E., Noreikiene V. In vitro color and roughness stability of different temporary restorative materials. Stomatologija. 2016; 18 (2): 66-72.

3. Hernandez E.P., Oshida Y., Platt J.A., Andres C.J., Barco M.T., Brown D.T. Mechanical properties of four methylmethacrylate-based resins for provisional fixed restorations. Biomed Mater Eng. 2004; 14 (1): 107-22.

4. Digholkar S., Madhav V.N.V., Palaskar J. Evaluation of the flexural strength and microhardness of provisional crown and bridge materials fabricated by different methods. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016; 16 (4): 328.

5. Nayyer M., Zahid S., Hassan S., Mian S., Mehmood S., Khan H., et al. Comparative abrasive wear resistance and surface analysis of dental resin-based materials. Eur J Dent. 2018; 12 (1): 57.

6. Mei M., So S., Li H., Chu C. Effect of Heat Treatment on the Physical Properties of Provisional Crowns during Polymerization: An in Vitro Study. J Mater Basel. 2015; 8 (4): 1766-77.

7. Singh A. Comparative Evaluation of Flexural Strength of Provisional Crown and Bridge Materials-An Invitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10 (8): 2-7.

8. Kerby R.E., Knobloch L.A., Sharples S., Peregrina A. Mechanical properties of urethane and bis-acryl interim resin materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110(1): 2-8.

9. Baroudi K, Kaminedi R, Penumatsa N, Priya T. The influence of finishing/polishing time and cooling system on surface roughness and microhardness of two different types of composite resin restorations. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2014; 4 (5): 99.

10. Yap A.U., Mah M.K., Lye C.P., Loh P.L. Influence of dietary simulating solvents on the hardness of provisional restorative materials. Dental Materials. 2004; 20 (4): 370-6.

11. Vaidyanathan T.K., Vaidyanathan J., Arghavani D. Elastic, viscoelastic and viscoplastic contributions to compliance during deformation under stress in prosthodontic temporization materials. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2016; 2 (1): 108-17.

12. Porto M., Aguiar F., Brandt W., Liporoni P. Mechanical and physical properties of silorane and methacrylate-based composites. J Dent. 2013; 41 (8): 732-9.

13. Ayaz E.A., Durkan R., Koroglu A., Bagis B. Comparative effect of different polymerization techniques on residual monomer and hardness properties of PMMA-based denture resins. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2014; 12 (3): 228-33.

14. Díez-Quijano C., Azevedo L., Antonaya- Martín J.L., Del Río-Highsmith J., Gómez- Polo M. Evaluation of the clinical behavior of 2 different materials for implant-supported interim fixed partial prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 3913 (19): 1-4.

15. Gandhi N. Evaluation of Surface Microhardness Following Chemical and Microwave Disinfection of Commercially Available Acrylic Resin Denture Teeth. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017; 11 (5): 87-91.

16. Kaur S., Makkar S., Kumar R., Pasricha S., Gupta P. Comparative evaluation of surface properties of enamel and different esthetic restorative materials under erosive and abrasive challenges: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent. 2015; 6 (4): 172.

17. Lutovac M., Popova O.V., Macanovic G., Kristina R., Lutovac B., Ketin S. Testing the Effect of Aggressive Beverage on the Damage of Enamel Structure. J Med Sci. 2017; 5 (7): 987-993.

18. Astudillo-Rubio D. Mechanical properties of provisional dental materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal PLoS One. 2018; 13 (4).

19. Bansal K., Saraswathi V., Acharya S. Effect of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages on color stability and surface roughness of resin composites: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2012; 15 (3): 283.

20. Bhatia C., Chandak M., Rahul A., Sedani S., Chandak R., Adwani N. Comparative evaluation of effect of different beverages on surface hardness of nanohybrid resin composite: An in vitro study. J Interdiscip Dent. 2016; 6 (2): 60.

21. Poggio C., Viola M., Mirando M., Chiesa M., Beltrami R., Colombo M. Microhardness of different esthetic restorative materials: Evaluation and comparison after exposure to acidic drink. Dent Res J. 2018; 15 (3): 166.

22. Aliping-McKenzie M., Linden R., Nicholson J.W. The effect of Coca-Cola and fruit juices on the surface hardness of glass-ionomers and «compomers». J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31 (11): 1046-52.

23. Hahnel S., Krifka S., Behr M., Kolbeck C., Lang R., Rosentritt M. Performance of resin materials for temporary fixed denture prostheses. Journal of Oral Science. 2019; 61 (2): 270-275.

24. Muley B.Y., Shaikh S.R., Tagore M.M., Khalikar A.N. Effect of Dietary Simulating Solvents on the Mechanical Properties of Provisional Restorative Materials-An In Vitro Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014; 14 (1): 98-105.

25. Guler A.U., Yilmaz F., Kulunk T., Guler E., Kurt S. Effects of different drinks on stainability of resin composite provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 94 (2): 118-24.

26. Dayan C., Kiseri B., Gencel B., Kurt H., Tuncer N. Wear resistance and microhardness of various interim fixed prosthesis materials. J Oral Sci. 2019; 61 (3): 447-453.

27. Akova T., Ozkomur A., Uysal H. Effect of food-simulating liquids on the mechanical properties of provisional restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2006; 22 (12): 1130-1134.