ABSTRACT
RESUMEN Objetivo: Realizar, durante siete años ininterrumpidos, un control y seguimiento de las fuentes de luz disponibles en las clínicas odontológicas de pre graado de una Institución de Enseñanza Superior Pública Brasileña. Material y métodos: Durante el período comprendido entre 2011-2017 se evaluó el control de calidad de las fuentes de luz de la Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad Federal de Goiás a través del análisis de su estado de conservación y de su densidad de potencia (mW/cm2). Los datos obtenidos se sometieron a un análisis estadístico descritpivo y a las pruebas de Levene, Shapiro-Wilk, Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn y Chi-cuadrado (P<0,05). Resultados: No se observaron diferencias estadísticas significativas del estado de conservación de las fuentes de luz entre los años 2012, 2016 y 2017 (p>0,05). Sí se observaron diferencias estadísticas significativas entre los valores de densidad de potência entre dichos años (p<0,0001). En las comparaciones por pares, los valores de densidad de potencia para los años 2011 (p<0,01) y 2012 (p<0,05) fueron estadísticamente diferentes de los años 2015, 2016 y 2017. Conclusiones: Comparativamente se observó una mejora sustancial del estado de conservación de las fuentes de luz en los cuatro años iniciales de evaluaciones, con una disminución en el quinto año y una estabilización en los dos últimos años. Durante los siete años de estudio de la densidad de potencia de las fuentes de luz se observó en un aumento gradual de la misma con una estabilización de los resultados a partir del quinto año de control de calidad.
SUMMARY Objetive: To monitor the light curing units available at undergraduate dental clinics of a Brazilian Public Higher Education Institution for seven uninterrupted years. Materials and methods: In the period between 2011-2017, the quality control of light curing units at the Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Goiás, was evaluated by analyzing their state of conservation and power density (mW/cm2). Data obtained were subjected to descriptive statistical analysis and Levene, Shapiro-Wilk, Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn and Chi-square tests (P <0.05). Results: Regarding the conservation status of the light curing units, comparatively, there was no statistically significant difference between the years 2012, 2016 and 2017 (p> 0.05). Statistically significant differences were found for power density values between years (p <0.0001). In pairwise comparisons, the power density values for the years 2011 (p <0.01) and 2012 (p <0.05) were statistically different from the years 2015, 2016 and 2017. Conclusions: A significant improvement in the state of conservation of light curing units was observed in the initial four years of evaluations, with a decline in the fifth year and stabilization in the last two years. Regarding the power density of the light curing units, a gradual increase was observed in the seven years of study, with stabilization of the results after the fifth year of quality control.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To investigate in vitro the effect of retentive grooves, GIC type and insertion method on the fracture resistance of Class II glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restorations. METHODS: Premolars were divided into 12 groups (n = 10) according to three variables: retentive grooves [presence (PR) or absence AR)], GICs type [Ketac-Molar (KM), Fuji VIII (F8) and RelyX Luting (RX)], and insertion method [syringe injector (SI) or spoon excavator (SE)]. The specimens were subjected to fracture resistance test. Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and multiple comparisons were performed using a Tukey test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Mean fracture resistance values (Kgf) +/- standard deviations (SD) were: KM (PR+SI) = 65.66 +/- 2.5; KM (PR+SE) = 62.58 +/- 2.1; KM (AR+SI) = 57.11 +/- 1.9; KM (AR+SE) = 51.94 +/- 2.3; F8 (PR+SI) = 63.05 +/- 2.1; F8 (PR+SE) = 60.12 +/- 2.3; F8 (AR+SI) = 55.11 +/- 1.9; F8(AR+SE) = 49.20 +/- 1.6; RX (PR+SI) = 50.99 +/- 2.4; RX (PR+SE) = 48.81 +/- 2.5; RX (AR+SI) = 45.53 +/- 2.6; RX (AR+SE) = 41.88 +/- 3.0. Statistically significant differences were observed among all the groups tested (P = 0.001). There was significant difference when pooled means for GIC type were compared with retentive grooves (P = 0.01) and when pooled means for retentive grooves were compared with insertion method (P = 0.01).
