3 research outputs found

    Influence of glass fiber posts and class III direct restorations on the resistance of anterior teeth

    Get PDF
    This study objectives to evaluate the fracture strength of upper central incisors (UCI) restored with composite resin (CR) in Class III cavities and endodontically treated teeth with or without glass fiber post (GFP), analyzing their failure mode. Sixty human UCI were randomly divided into four experimental groups: endodontically treated teeth without GFP (G1), endodontically treated teeth with GFP (G2), teeth with mesial/distal Class III cavities restored with CR without GFP (G3), and teeth with mesial/distal Class III cavities restored with CR with GFP (G4). The samples were submitted to the fracture strength test in a universal testing machine with a compression shear load applied at speed of 1.0 mm/min until fracture occurred. The data were submitted to one-way ANOVA (α=0.05) and the samples were analyzed for failure mode. The analysis did not show a significant statistical difference in fracture strength between the groups (p>0.05). The results showed that only endodontically treated teeth (G1) (753.4N) presented behavior similar to teeth with GFP (G2) (702.1N). The same occurred when comparing teeth with Class III cavities without GFP (G3) (670.2 N) and with GFP (G4) (746.1N). It can be concluded that glass fiber posts do not change the fracture strength of incisors with endodontic treatment and Class III cavities

    Perception of dentists, dental students, and patients on dentogingival aesthetics

    No full text
    Abstract Introduction Patients’ demand for dentogingival aesthetics has increased significantly in recent years, and this is a complex concept due to numerous factors involved in obtaining patient/professional satisfaction. Some dentogingival features may alter smile harmony, such as excessive gingival display. Objective To evaluate whether the presence of gingival display has a negative influence on the perception of dentogingival aesthetics. Material and method 180 individuals (60 dentists, 60 dental students, and 60 patients) evaluated images of volunteer smiles. These images were digitally altered by the Adobe Photoshop™ software, creating different situations of gingival display (4 mm, 2 mm, 0 mm, -2 mm, -4 mm), and graded by the evaluators with the following scores: (01) very pleasant smile, (02) pleasant smile, and 03) unpleasant smile. The scores assigned were analyzed using ANOVA (α=0.05). Result Gingival displays between 0 and 2 mm were considered aesthetically pleasing. Changes of -4 and +4 mm were defined as the most disharmonious smiles. The 0-mm female smile was considered the most harmonious for dentists (1.51) and dental students (1.77), by Student's t test (p<0.05). In the opinion of patients, the smile of +2 mm was considered the most aesthetic. In the image evaluations of men, the 0-mm smile was considered the most aesthetic (p <0.05) for dentists (1.85) and dental students (1.62). The patients considered +2 mm of gingival display the most harmonious smile. Conclusion The aesthetic perception of dental students and dentists was different when compared to the group of patients

    Perception of dentists, dental students, and patients on dentogingival aesthetics

    No full text
    <div><p>Abstract Introduction Patients’ demand for dentogingival aesthetics has increased significantly in recent years, and this is a complex concept due to numerous factors involved in obtaining patient/professional satisfaction. Some dentogingival features may alter smile harmony, such as excessive gingival display. Objective To evaluate whether the presence of gingival display has a negative influence on the perception of dentogingival aesthetics. Material and method 180 individuals (60 dentists, 60 dental students, and 60 patients) evaluated images of volunteer smiles. These images were digitally altered by the Adobe Photoshop™ software, creating different situations of gingival display (4 mm, 2 mm, 0 mm, -2 mm, -4 mm), and graded by the evaluators with the following scores: (01) very pleasant smile, (02) pleasant smile, and 03) unpleasant smile. The scores assigned were analyzed using ANOVA (α=0.05). Result Gingival displays between 0 and 2 mm were considered aesthetically pleasing. Changes of -4 and +4 mm were defined as the most disharmonious smiles. The 0-mm female smile was considered the most harmonious for dentists (1.51) and dental students (1.77), by Student's t test (p<0.05). In the opinion of patients, the smile of +2 mm was considered the most aesthetic. In the image evaluations of men, the 0-mm smile was considered the most aesthetic (p <0.05) for dentists (1.85) and dental students (1.62). The patients considered +2 mm of gingival display the most harmonious smile. Conclusion The aesthetic perception of dental students and dentists was different when compared to the group of patients.</p></div
    corecore