IADR Abstract Archives
Fluorescence in Natural Teeth and Composite
Objectives: To compare the fluorescence of natural tooth structure to composite restorative material in dental students ages 18 to 23 at Universidad del Desarrollo Concepción Chile (UDD) clinic in 2013.
Methods: Twenty subjects, 10 females and 10 males, between the ages of 18 and 23 with no caries nor restorations in their maxillary anterior teeth were studied. Four photographs were taken with ultraviolet light with different composites applied to the facial surface of tooth 9, without acid etching technique. The photographic images were then analyzed by two calibrated observes, which through a Perception Scale based on 5 points, gave a punctuation. Data was later tabulated in Microsoft Excel 2010 and then trespassed to SPSS 15.0. All of the procedure followed the Helsinki declaration.
Results: The four analyzed composites resulted different than the fluorescence of the natural tooth. It was determined that the variable sex and age didn’t had statistically significant in the fluorescence (p>0,05).
Conclusions: The fluorescence of the composite used in the UDD clinic is different than the fluorescence of the natural tooth. Although the difference was not statistically significant, for the ages 18 to 20 and 21 to 21, the study may be expanded to older ages.
Methods: Twenty subjects, 10 females and 10 males, between the ages of 18 and 23 with no caries nor restorations in their maxillary anterior teeth were studied. Four photographs were taken with ultraviolet light with different composites applied to the facial surface of tooth 9, without acid etching technique. The photographic images were then analyzed by two calibrated observes, which through a Perception Scale based on 5 points, gave a punctuation. Data was later tabulated in Microsoft Excel 2010 and then trespassed to SPSS 15.0. All of the procedure followed the Helsinki declaration.
Results: The four analyzed composites resulted different than the fluorescence of the natural tooth. It was determined that the variable sex and age didn’t had statistically significant in the fluorescence (p>0,05).
Conclusions: The fluorescence of the composite used in the UDD clinic is different than the fluorescence of the natural tooth. Although the difference was not statistically significant, for the ages 18 to 20 and 21 to 21, the study may be expanded to older ages.
2108255_File000000.JPG