DERYA CEYHAN, ZÜHAL KIRZIOĞLU, Z. Zahit ÇİFTÇİ

İki Farklı Materyal ve Bağlayıcı Ajanın Kopma Dirençlerinin Süt Dişlerinde Değerlendirilmesi

Bu çalışmada, indirekt olarak hazırlanan ve farklı adeziv rezin bazlı ajanlar ile süt dişlerine yapıştırılan kompozit ve kompomer onleylerin kopma dirençlerinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı. Çürüksüz 20 adet süt dişinin kökleri, kronlarından ayrıldı. Kron kısımları, okluzal yüzeye paralel şekilde kesilerek homojen bir dentin tabakası elde edildi. Işık ile birincil ve polimerizasyon fırını ile ikincil polimerizasyon uygulanarak kompozit ve kompomer onleyler hazırlandı. Diş örnekleri, kullanılacak materyallere göre 4 gruba ayrıldı: Grup1(Kompozit onley+Çok aşamalı yapıştırma ajanı), Grup 2(Kompozit onley+Self-adeziv yapıştırma ajanı), Grup3(Kompomer onley+Çok aşamalı yapıştırma ajanı), Grup4(Kompomer onley+Self-adeziv yapıştırma ajanı). Kompozit ve kompomer onleyler yapıştırılan diş örneklerinden çubuk şeklinde örnekler hazırlandı, mikrogerilim test cihazında kopma değerleri kaydedildi ve Mann Whitney-U testi ile karşılaştırıldı. Elde edilen 59 test örneğinin kopma değerlerinin 2.5-15.8MPa arasında değiştiği görüldü. Restorasyon materyalleri arasında (Grup 1-3/Grup 2-4) farklılık bulunmazken (p>0.05), yapıştırma ajanları arasında (Grup 1-2/Grup 3-4) anlamlı farklılık olduğu (p

The Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Two Different Materials and Bonding Agents in Primary Teeth

This study aimed to evaluate fracture resistance of indirect composite/composite onlays bonded to primary teeth with different adhesive resin based agents. Roots of 20 non-carious primary teeth were separated from their crowns. Crowns were cut parallel to occlusal surface and a homogeneous dentin layer was obtained. Primary polymerization with light and secondary polymerization with polymerization furnace were applied to prepare composite/compomer onlays. Tooth samples were divided into 4 groups according to materials: Group1(Composite onlay+Multi-step adhesive agent), Group2(Composite onlay+Self-adhesive agent), Group3(Compomer onlay+Multi-step adhesive agent), Group4(Compomer onlay+Self-adhesive agent). Rod-shaped samples were prepared from tooth samples, fracture values were recorded in microtensile test device and compared with Mann Whitney-U test. Fracture values of obtained 59 test samples varied between 2.5-15.8MPa. While there was no difference between restoration materials (Group 1-3/Group 2-4)(p>0.05), there was a significant difference between bonding agents (Group 1-2/Group 3- 4)(p

PDF

___

Rabêlo RT, Caldo-Teixeira AS, Puppin-Rontani RM. An alternative aesthetic restoration for extensive coronal destruction in primary molars: indirect restorative technique with composite resin. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005; 29(4): 277-281.
Nandini S. Indirect resin composites. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13(4): 184-194.
Sumikawa DA, Marshall GW, Gee L, Marshall SJ. Microstructure of primary tooth dentin. Pediatr Dent 1999; 21(7): 439-444.
Viotti RG, Kasaz A, Pena CE, Alexandre RS, Arrais CA, Reis AF. Microtensile bond strength of new self-adhesive luting agents and conventional multistepsystems. J Prosthet Dent 2009; 102(5): 306-312.
Ali AM, Hamouda IM, Ghazy MH, Abo-Madina MM. Immediate and delayed micro-tensile bond strength of different luting resin cements to differentregional dentin. J Biomed Res 2013; 27(2): 151-158.
Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater 1995; 11(2): 117- 125.
Tagami J, Nikaido T, Nakajima M, Shimada Y. Relationship between bond strength tests and other in vitro phenomena. Dent Mater 2010; 26(2): 94-99.
Lee JJ, Nettey-Marbell A, Cook A Jr, Pimenta LA, Leonard R, Ritter AV. Using extracted teeth for research: the effect of storage medium and sterilization on dentin bond strengths. J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138(12): 1599-1603.
Santana FR, Pereira JC, Pereira CA, Fernandes Neto AJ, Soares CJ. Influence of method and period of storage on the microtensile bond strength of indirect composite resin restorations to dentine. Braz Oral Res 2008; 22(4): 352-357.
Perdigão J. Dentin bonding-variables related to the clinical situation and the substrate treatment. Dent Mater 2010; 26(2): e24-37.
Angker L, Nockolds C, Swain MV, Kilpatrick N. Quantitative analysis of the mineral content of sound and carious primary dentine using BSE imaging. Arch Oral Biol 2004; 49(2): 99-107.
Lenzi TL, Guglielmi Cde A, Arana-Chavez VE, Raggio DP. Tubule density and diameter in coronal dentin from primary and permanent human teeth. Microsc Microanal 2013; 19(6): 1445-1449.
Burrow MF, Nopnakeepong U, Phrukkanon S. A comparison of microtensile bond strengths of several dentin bonding systems to primary and permanent dentin. Dent Mater 2002; 18(3): 239- 245.
Prabhakar AR, Raj S, Raju OS. Comparison of shear bond strength of composite, compomer and resin modified glass ionomerin primary and permanent teeth: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2003; 21(3): 86-94.
Soares FZ, Lenzi TL, de Oliveira Rocha R. Degradation of resin-dentine bond of different adhesive systems to primary and permanentdentine. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2017; 18(2): 113-118.
Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Temperature rise induced by some light emitting diode and quartztungsten-halogen curing units. Eur J Oral Sci 2005; 113(1): 96-98.
Davidson CL, de Gee AJ. Light-curing units, polymerization, and clinical implications. J Adhes Dent 2000; 2(3): 167-173.
Morris MD, Lee KW, Agee KA, Bouillaguet S, Pashley DH. Effects of sodium hypochlorite and RC prep on bond strengths of resin cement to endodontic surfaces. J Endod 2001; 27(12): 753- 757.
Borges AF, Simonato LE, Pascon FM, Kantowitz KR, Rontani RM. Effects of resin luting agents and 1% NaOCl on the marginal fit of indirect composite restorations in primary teeth. J Appl Oral Sci 2011; 19(5): 455-461.
Jedynakiewicz NM, Martin N. Expansion behaviour of compomer restoratives. Biomaterials 2001; 22(7): 743-748.