Potencial inflamatório de duas técnicas para afastamento gengival utilizadas durante procedimentos protéticos

• Ano de defesa: 2013
• Autor(a) principal: Sarmento, Hugo Ramalho
• Orientador(a): Faot, Fernanda
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Pelotas
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Odontologia
• Departamento: Odontologia
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: Prótese dentária; Prótese parcial fixa; Retração gengival; Compostos de alumínio; Mediadores dainflamação
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Dental prosthesis; Fixed partial denture; Gingival recession; Aluminum compounds; Inflammation mediators
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA
• Link de acesso: https://guaiaca.ufpel.edu.br/handle/123456789/2246

This study was composed by two phases that evaluated two gingival displacement (GD) techniques, conventional and cordless: 1- a in vitro study which assess cytoxicity/genotoxicity, and pH of AlCl3-based agents; and 2- a randomized clinical which evaluated the efficacy of these techniques. For in vitro phase, eluates were obtained by dilution of AlCl3-based into culture medium for 1h, 4h, and 24h. pH values were measured by digital pHmeter, cytotoxicity by MTT test and genotoxicity by Micronuclei test. A crossover, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate clinical, immunologic and individual factors before and after GD by two techniques, conventional (gingival cord + astringent gel) and cordless (astringent-based paste). These factors were evaluated on incisors prepared for metal-ceramic dental crowns before, 1 day post-GD and 10 day post-GD. Interleukin 1β, Interleukin 6 and Tumor Necrosis Factor α concentrations were evaluated on gingival crevicular fluid collected before (control) and 1 day post-GD. In vitro data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey test. Clinical data were analyzed by One-way Repeated Measures ANOVA and Tukey test (immunologic factor), Friedman test (periodontal parameters), and Fisher Exact or Qui-square test (pain, stress, and unpleasant flavor during GD). All test were realized considering p<0.05. Mean pH values were statistically higher for Viscostat than Expasyl. Both astringents were non-cytotoxic at 1h. Expasyl was more cytotoxic than Viscostat at 4h and 24h. Expasyl genotoxicity was not different from control group. Neither of the two evaluated techniques resulted in worse periodontal indices. Conventional technique was statistically more stressing than cordless, and similar considering pain and unpleasant taste. GD by the both 11 treatments evaluated led to statistically higher mean concentrations of the three interleukins evaluated. Conventional GD technique resulted in the highest interleukins levels. In vitro, AlCl3-based astringents presented acceptable biological activity with no genotoxic difference between Expasyl and control group. In vivo, cordless technique was less stressful and resulted in lower cytokines levels after GD