Browsing by Author "Demirel, Gülbike"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Antibakteriyel adeziv sistemlerin bakteri penetrasyonuna etkilerinin in-vitro olarak incelenmesi
    (Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2012) Demirel, Gülbike; Gür, Gürkan
    Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı dentin adeziv sistemlerin, sınırı sementte sonlanan Sınıf II kavitelerdeki S. mutans sızıntısını engelleme kabiliyetlerini in-vitro olarak incelemektir. Çalışmada kullanılmak üzere altı farklı adeziv sistem (Clearfil Protect Bond, Clearfil SE Bond, Clearfil S3 Bond, Siloran Sistem Adezivi FL Bond II ve Solobon M) seçilmiştir. 60 adet çürüksüz insan 3. molar dişine mezial ve distal olmak üzere 120 adet Sınıf II kutu kavite açılmıştır. Her grupta 10'ar tane diş, olacak şekilde altı gruba ayrılmış ve farklı adeziv sistemler kullanılarak restorasyonlar yapılmıştır. Restore edilen örnekler, bakteriyel mikrosızıntı testi için, Streptococcus mutans içeren kültür solüsyonuna daldırılmıştır. Örneklerden alınan seri kesitler ışık mikroskobu kullanılarak bakteri sızıntısı değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler 2-yönlü Karma Varyans Analizi kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir (p<0,05). İstatistiksel analiz sonuçlarına göre gruplar arasında farklılık vardır (p<0,05). En düşük bakteriyel mikrosızıntı sonuçlarını Siloran Sistem Adezivi'nin kullanıldığı grup göstermiştir. Fakat antibakteriyel adeziv sistemlerde dahil olmak üzere test edilen hiçbir adeziv sistem diş-restorasyon ara yüzüne bakteriyel mikrosızıntıyı engellemede başarılı olamamıştır.AbstractThe aim of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the effect of different adhesive sytems on bacterial microleakage of Class II box cavities with restoration margins in dentin. Six different adhesive systems were selected (Clearfil Protect Bond, Clearfil SE Bond, Clearfil S3 Bond, Silorane System Adhesive, FL Bond II and Solobon M) for the study. 120 mesial and distal Class II box cavities were prepared on sixty sound human third molar teeth. The teeth were then divided into six groups with 10 teeth in each group. Groups were restorated using different adhesive systems.The restored specimens were immersed into a culture medium containing Streptococcus mutans for bacterial microleakage test. Serial sections of the specimens were used to evaluate the bacterial lekage by using light microscope. The data obtained from the test of bacterial microleakage was evaluated using 2-way mixed analysis of variance (p<0,05). Statistical analysis showed significant differences between the groups (p <0.05). Silorane System Adhesive group showed the lowest microleakage pattern. However it was observed that none of the adhesive systems including the antibacterial ones were successfull in eliminating bacterial microleakage.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Influence of different universal adhesives on the repair performance of hybrid CAD-CAM materials
    (2019) Demirel, Gülbike; Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi
    Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of different universal adhesive systems applied to hybrid computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) restorative materials repaired with a composite resin. Materials and methods: Four types of CAD-CAM hybrid block materials-Lava Ultimate (LA), Vita Enamic (VE), CeraSmart (CS), and Shofu Block HC (SH)-were used in this study, in combination with the following four adhesive protocols: 1) control: porcelain primer + total etch adhesive (CO), 2) Single Bond Universal (SB), 3) All Bond Universal (AB), and 4) Clearfil Universal Bond (CU). The μSBS of the composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic) was measured and the data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test, with the level of significance set at p < 0.05. Results: The CAD-CAM block type and block-adhesive combination had significant effects on the bond strength values (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found between the following pairs of groups: VE/CO and VE/AB, CS/CO and CS/AB, VE/CU and CS/CU, and VE/AB and CS/AB (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The μSBS values were affected by hybrid block type. All tested universal adhesive treatments can be used as an alternative to the control treatment for repair, except the AB system on VE blocks (the VE/AB group). The μSBS values showed variation across different adhesive treatments on different hybrid CAD-CAM block types.