Efecto de distintos tratamientos de superficie en la reparación del silorano P 90.

Abstract

Objetivo: Comparar la fuerza de adhesion de la resina P90 a resina P90 reparada con diferentes tratamientos de superficies.Materiales y Metodos: Se utilizaron 40 cubos de resina Filtek P90, que fueron envejecidos en agua destilada por un mes, divididos en4 grupos (n=10) para aplicar tratamientos de superficies: al G1 se les aplico acido; al G2, fresado; al G3, arenado y; al G4,fresado+arenado+acido como tratamientos de superficies, para su posterior reparacion con el mismo material. Finalmente fueronsometidos a pruebas de Micro-Tensile para estudiar la interfaz adhesiva y conocer cual fue el tratamiento de superficie mas efectivopara la reparacion de la resina Filtek P90 a base de silorano. Resultados: Se obtuvo una diferencia estadisticamente significativa enlas medias (p= 0,0038), el mayor valor fue para G4 16,4827 MPa, seguido de G2 14,1758 Mpa, posteriormente G3 13,8615Mpa y,finalmente, G1 10,8692 MPa. Conclusiones: El G4 obtuvo mayor valor; sin embargo, no se encontro diferencia estadistica entre G4,G3, G2; pero al comparar todos los grupos con G1 se evidencia una diferencia estadisticamente significativa Effect of different surface treatments on repairing the silorane p 90 Abstract Objective: To compare the adhesive strength found in P90 resins to P90 resins that have been restored with different surfacetreatments. Materials and methods: 40 cubes of Filtek P90 resin which have been previously aged for a month in distilled water,were divided into four groups (n=10) to apply different surface treatments (G1: acid, G2: milling, G3: sanding, G4: milling + sanding+ acid as surface treatments) to be later restored with the same material. Finally, all groups were subjected to a micro-tensile bondstrength test to study the bonding interface and to know which surface treatment seems to be more effective for the restoration ofFiltek P90 silorane based resin. Results: A statistically significant difference in the averages was obtained (p= 0,0038), the higher tvalue was found for G4: 16,4827MPa, and the lower one was for G1: 10,8692MPa. Conclusions: the G4 group got the higher scores.Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences were found between groups G4, G3, G2; but when comparing the aforementionedsample groups with G1, a statistically significant difference was observed.