Farklı Uygulama Prosedürleri Kendinden Bağlanabilen Restoratif Materyallerin Sertliğini Etkiler mi?

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı farklı sertleştirme prosedürlerinin, enerji içeceklerine maruz kaldıktan sonra restoratif materyallerin sertliği üzerindeki etkisini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Alkasit (self-cured), alkasit (dual-cured), hibrit cam iyonomer (HGI), HGI + kaplama, HGI + ısıtma, cam karbomer (GC), GC + kaplama, GC + ısıtma ve nanohibrit kompozit (kontrol) kullanıldı. Her grup üç alt gruba ayrıldı (n=12): Red Bull, Burn, yapay tükürükte bekletme. Örnekler 6 ay boyunca günde 2 dakika solüsyonlara daldırıldı. Yüzey sertliği değerlendirmeleri başlangıçta, 1 hafta, 1 ay ve 6 ay sonra yapıldı. İstatistiksel analizler Friedman testi, Kruskal-Wallis ve Bonferroni post-hoc testleri kullanılarak yapıldı (p

Does Different Application Procedures Effect Hardness of Self Adherable Materials?

Objective: To assess the effect of application procedures on the hardness of selfadherable materials after energy drink exposure. Materials and Methods: Alkasite (self-cured), alkasite (dual-cured), (HGI), HGI + coating, HGI + heating, (GC), GC + coating, GC + heating, and nanohybrid composite (control) used. Samples from the main group were distributed into three subgroups (n=12): Red Bull, Burn, artificial saliva. The samples were dipped in solutions 2-min daily, up to 6 months. Surface hardness measurements were done after the specimen preparation and after they were kept in the solution for 1 week, 1 month and 6 months. Statistical analyses were done with Friedman tests, Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni post hoc tests (p

PDF

___

1. Savas S, Colgecen O, Yasa B, Kucukyilmaz E. Color stability, roughness, and water sorption/solubility of glass ionomer-Based restorative materials. Niger J Clin Pract 2019; 22: 824-32.
2. Ong J, Yap AU, Hong JY, Eweis AH, Yahya NA. Viscoelastic Properties of Contemporary Bulk-fill Restoratives: A Dynamicmechanical Analysis. Oper Dent 2018; 43: 307-14.
3. Kutuk ZB, Ozturk C, Cakir FY, Gurgan S. Mechanical performance of a newly developed glass hybrid restorative in the restoration of large MO Class 2 cavities. Niger J Clin Pract 2019; 22: 833-41.
4. Moshaverinia A, Ansari S, Moshaverinia M, Roohpour N, Darr JA, Rehman I. Effects of incorporation of hydroxyapatite and fluoroapatite nanobioceramics into conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC). Acta Biomater 2008; 4: 432-40.
5. Tatlı EC, Ozer L. Evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of glass carbomer cement under in vitro conditions. Turk J Clin Lab 2018; 9: 281-6.
6. Menne-Happ U, Ilie N. Effect of heat application on the mechanical behaviour of glass ionomer cements. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18: 643-50.
7. O'Brien T, Shoja-Assadi F, Lea SC, Burke FJ, Palin WM. Extrinsic energy sources affect hardness through depth during set of a glass-ionomer cement. J Dent 2010; 38: 490-5.
8. Kanik Ö, Turkun LS, Dasch W. In vitro abrasion of resin-coated highly viscous glass ionomer cements: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Clin Oral Investig 2017; 21: 821-9.
9. Mishra A, Singh G, Singh SK, Agarwal M, Qureshi R, Khurana N. Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Cention N with Conventionally used Restorative Materials—An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018; 8: 120-4.
10. Cention N retrieved. Avaliable at URL: http://www. ivoclarvivadent.in/en-in/p/all/cention-n.
11. Yazkan B. Surface degradation evaluation of different selfadhesive restorative materials after prolonged energy drinks exposure. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020; 32: 707-14.
12. Cavalcanti AL, Costa Oliveira M, Florentino VG, dos Santos JA, Vieira FF, Cavalcanti CL. Short communication: In vitro assessment of erosive potential of energy drinks. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2010; 11: 253-5.
13. Ergücü Z, Türkün LS, Aladag A. Color stability of nanocomposites polished with one-step systems. Oper Dent 2008; 33: 413-20.
14. Erdemir U, Yildiz E, Eren MM, Ozel S. Surface hardness of different restorative materials after long-term immersion in sports and energy drinks. Dent Mater J 2012; 31: 729-36.
15. Ryge G, Foley DE, Fairhurst CW. Micro-indentation hardness. J Dent Res 1961; 40: 1116-26.
16. Yanıkoğlu N, Duymuş ZY, Yilmaz B. Effects of different solutions on the surface hardness of composite resin materials. Dent Mater J 2009; 28: 344-51.
17. Buldur M, Sirin Karaarslan E. Microhardness of glass carbomer and high-viscous glass Ionomer cement in different thickness and thermo-light curing durations after thermocycling aging. BMC Oral Health 2019; 19: 273.
18. Shintome LK, Nagayassu MP, Di Nicoló R, Myaki SI. Microhardness of glass ionomer cements indicated for the ART technique according to surface protection treatment and storage time. Braz Oral Res 2009; 23: 439-45.
19. Jafarpour D, Mese A, Ferooz M, Bagheri R. The effects of nanofilled resin-based coatings on the physical properties of glass ionomer cement restorative materials. J Dent 2019; 89: 103177.
20. Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent 2015; 40: 134-43.
21. Kuter B, Eden E, Yildiz H. The effect of heat on the mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2013; 14: 90-4.
22. Kleverlaan CJ, van Duinen RN, Feilzer AJ. Mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements affected by curing methods. Dent Mater 2004; 20: 45-50.
23. Gavic L, Gorseta K, Glavina D, Czarnecka B, Nicholson JW. Heat transfer properties and thermal cure of glass-ionomer dental cements. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2015; 26: 249.
24. Ilie N. Comparative Effect of Self- or Dual-Curing on Polymerization Kinetics and Mechanical Properties in a Novel, Dental-Resin-Based Composite with Alkaline Filler. Running Title: Resin-Composites with Alkaline Fillers. Materials (Basel) 2018; 11: 108.
25. Mazumdar P, Das A, Guha C. Comparative evaluation of hardness of different restorative materials (restorative GIC, Cention N, nanohybrid composite resin and silver amalgam) –an in vitro study. Int J Adv Res 2018; 6: 826-32.