Publicação: Influence of the treatments for ethylene-vinyl acetate on delamination of custom-fitted mouthguard
Carregando...
Tipo do documento
Data
Direito de acesso
Coleções
Programa
Área do conhecimento
CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Autores
Orientador
Coorientador
Resumo
Background/Aims: The contamination on the ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) during the
mouthguard fabrication can generate the delamination. The EVA treatment are not
well stablished. The aim was to evaluate the effect of different EVA surface treatment
on the contact angle, laminated bond strength and elongation capacity.
Materials and Methods: EVA plates (Biaort) were characterized measuring the
thickness (mm) using digital caliper, and the Shore A in 3 different locations before and
after thermo-plasticization. The EVA plates were randomized in pars and received 5
different surface treatment protocols: NoT, No treatment (Control); IsoAc, Isopropyl
Alcohol; Chlo, Chloroform; AcRm, Acrylic resin monomer; 70Alc, 70% Alcohol. The
bonding plate area was standardized and after plasticization the specimens were made
and tested according to ISO 37-2017 (n = 30). The maximum breaking force (N) and
maximal elongation (ME, mm) were recorded at the specimen rupture using universal
test machine (Instron E3000). The laminated bond strength (LBS, MPa) was obtained
dividing the maximal maximum breaking force (N) by bonding area (mm2
). The failure
modes were classified regarding the rupture location in 5 levels. The contact angle
surface was measured using ImageJ software. The LNS and ME data were analyzed by
one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test and Dunnet test. The failure mode data was
analyzed by Chi-square test ( = 0.05).
Results: The EVA surface treatment influenced significantly the LBS and ME (P < 0.001).
The control group showed higher CAN and significantly lower LBS and ME than all
9
tested EVA surface treatment (P < 0.001). The AcRm and Chlo had similar LBS, ME and
CAN values and higher than other protocols (P <0.001). Failure modes were not
influenced by the EVA surface treatment (P = 0.604).
Conclusions: All tested protocols resulted in higher LBS and tended to increase the ME
of the EVA than control group. The acrylic resin monomer and chloroform surface
treatments resulted in lower EVA CAN and higher LBS and ME than other tested
protocols.
Abstract
Background/Aims: The contamination on the ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) during the
mouthguard fabrication can generate the delamination. The EVA treatment are not
well stablished. The aim was to evaluate the effect of different EVA surface treatment
on the contact angle, laminated bond strength and elongation capacity.
Materials and Methods: EVA plates (Biaort) were characterized measuring the
thickness (mm) using digital caliper, and the Shore A in 3 different locations before and
after thermo-plasticization. The EVA plates were randomized in pars and received 5
different surface treatment protocols: NoT, No treatment (Control); IsoAc, Isopropyl
Alcohol; Chlo, Chloroform; AcRm, Acrylic resin monomer; 70Alc, 70% Alcohol. The
bonding plate area was standardized and after plasticization the specimens were made
and tested according to ISO 37-2017 (n = 30). The maximum breaking force (N) and
maximal elongation (ME, mm) were recorded at the specimen rupture using universal
test machine (Instron E3000). The laminated bond strength (LBS, MPa) was obtained
dividing the maximal maximum breaking force (N) by bonding area (mm2
). The failure
modes were classified regarding the rupture location in 5 levels. The contact angle
surface was measured using ImageJ software. The LNS and ME data were analyzed by
one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test and Dunnet test. The failure mode data was
analyzed by Chi-square test ( = 0.05).
Results: The EVA surface treatment influenced significantly the LBS and ME (P < 0.001).
The control group showed higher CAN and significantly lower LBS and ME than all
9
tested EVA surface treatment (P < 0.001). The AcRm and Chlo had similar LBS, ME and
CAN values and higher than other protocols (P <0.001). Failure modes were not
influenced by the EVA surface treatment (P = 0.604).
Conclusions: All tested protocols resulted in higher LBS and tended to increase the ME
of the EVA than control group. The acrylic resin monomer and chloroform surface
treatments resulted in lower EVA CAN and higher LBS and ME than other tested
protocols.
Palavras-chave
Dentoalveolar trauma, Mouthguard, Ethylene vinyl acetate, Surface treatment, Delamination
Citação
RESENDE,Júlia Borges. Influence of the treatments for ethylene vinyl acetate ondelamination of custom-fitted mouthguard. 2022. 34 f. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (Graduação em Odontologia) – Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Uberlândia, 2022.