Yazar "Yilmaz, B." seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 2 / 2
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Bond strength of additively manufactured composite resins to dentin and titanium when bonded with dual-polymerizing resin cements
    (Elsevier Inc., 2023) Donmez, M.B.; Çakmak, G.; Yılmaz, D.; Schimmel, M.; Abou-Ayash, S.; Yilmaz, B.; Peutzfeldt A.
    Statement of problem: Additively manufactured composite resins for definitive restorations have been recently introduced. The bond strength between these composite resins and different substrates has not been extensively studied. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the shear bond strength (SBS) between additively manufactured composite resins and dentin and titanium substrates and compare those with the SBS between subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic and the same substrates (dentin and titanium), when different dual-polymerizing resin cements were used. Material and methods: One hundred and eighty cylinder-shaped specimens (Ø5×5 mm) were prepared from 3 materials recommended for definitive restorations: an additively manufactured composite resin (Crowntec [CT]); an additively manufactured hybrid composite resin (VarseoSmile Crown Plus [VS]); and a subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Enamic [EN]) (n=60). Specimens were randomly divided into six subgroups to be cemented to the two substrates (dentin and titanium; n=30) with 1 of 3 resin cements (RelyX Universal, Panavia V5, and Variolink Esthetic DC) (n=10). The restoration surface to be bonded was treated according to the respective manufacturer's recommendations. Dentin surfaces were treated according to the resin cement (Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive for RelyX Universal, Panavia V5 Tooth Primer for Panavia V5, and Adhese Universal for Variolink Esthetic DC), while titanium surfaces were airborne-particle abraded, and only the specimens paired with Panavia V5 were treated with a ceramic primer (Clearfil Ceramic Primer Plus). SBS was measured in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed under a microscope at ×12 magnification. Data were analyzed by using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests (?=.05). Results: When SBS to dentin was considered, only restorative material, as a main factor, had a significant effect (P<.001); EN had the highest SBS (P<.001), while the difference in SBS values of CT and VS was not significant (P=.145). As for SBS to titanium, the factors restorative material and resin cement and their interaction had a significant effect (P<.001). Within each resin cement, EN had the highest SBS to titanium (P<.001), and within each restorative material, Variolink resulted in the lowest SBS (P?.010). Overall, EN and RelyX were associated with the highest SBS to titanium (P?.013). Mixed failures were predominant in most groups. Conclusions: Regardless of the substrate or the resin cement used, the subtractively manufactured polymer-infiltrated ceramic had higher shear bond strength than the additively manufactured composite resins. The SBS of the additively manufactured composite resins, whether bonded to dentin or titanium, were not significantly different from each other. Regardless of the restorative material, Variolink DC resulted in the lowest SBS for titanium surfaces. © 2023 Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Scan accuracy and time efficiency of different implant-supported fixed partial denture situations depending on the intraoral scanner and scanned area: An in vitro study
    (Elsevier Inc., 2023) Donmez, M.B.; Mathey, A.; Gäumann, F.; Mathey, A.; Yilmaz, B.; Abou-Ayash, S.
    Statement of problem: The type of intraoral scanner (IOS), region of the implant, and extent of the scanned area have been reported to affect scan accuracy. However, knowledge of the accuracy of IOSs is scarce when digitizing different partially edentulous situations either with complete- or partial-arch scans. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the scan accuracy and time efficiency of complete- and partial-arch scans of different partially edentulous situations with 2 implants and 2 different IOSs. Material and methods: Three maxillary models with implant spaces at the lateral incisor sites (anterior 4-unit), right first premolar and right first molar sites (posterior 3-unit), or right canine and right first molar sites (posterior 4-unit) were fabricated. After placing implants (Straumann S RN) and scan bodies (CARES Mono Scanbody), models were digitized by using an optical scanner (ATOS Capsule 200MV120) to generate reference standard tessellation language (STL) files. Complete- or partial-arch scans (test scans) of each model were then performed by using 2 IOSs (Primescan [PS] and TRIOS 3 [T3]) (n=14). The duration of the scans and the time needed to postprocess the STL file until the design could be started were also recorded. A metrology-grade analysis software program (GOM Inspect 2018) was used to superimpose test scan STLs over the reference STL to calculate 3D distance, interimplant distance, and angular (mesiodistal and buccopalatal) deviations. Nonparametric 2-way analysis of variance followed by Mann-Whitney tests with Holm correction were used for trueness, precision, and time efficiency analyses (?=.05). Results: The interaction between IOSs and scanned area only affected the precision of the scans when angular deviation data were considered (P?.002). Trueness of the scans was affected by IOSs when 3D distance, interimplant distance, and mesiodistal angular deviations were considered. The scanned area affected only 3D distance deviations (P?.006). IOSs and scanned area significantly affected the precision of scans when 3D distance, interimplant distance, and mesiodistal angular deviations were considered, while only IOSs significantly affected buccopalatal angular deviations (P?.040). Scans from PS had higher accuracy when 3D distance deviations were considered for the anterior 4-unit and posterior 3-unit models (P?.030), when interimplant distance deviations were considered for complete-arch scans of the posterior 3-unit model (P?.048), and when mesiodistal angular deviations were considered in the posterior 3-unit model (P?.050). Partial-arch scans had higher accuracy when 3D distance deviations of the posterior 3-unit model were considered (P?.002). PS had higher time efficiency regardless of the model and scanned area (P?.010), while partial-arch scans had higher time efficiency when scanning the posterior 3-unit and posterior 4-unit models with PS and the posterior 3-unit model with T3 (P?.050). Conclusions: Partial-arch scans with PS had similar or better accuracy and time efficiency than other tested scanned area-scanner pairs in tested partial edentulism situations. © 2023 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry