Effect of Different Surface Treatments and Roughness on the Repair Bond Strength of Aged Nanohybrid Composite

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorEren, Digdem
dc.contributor.authorDogan, Canan Arslan
dc.contributor.authorBektas, Ozden Ozel
dc.date.accessioned2024-10-26T18:05:42Z
dc.date.available2024-10-26T18:05:42Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.departmentSivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractObjective and background: Different surface treatments have been tested in composite repair studies. However, there is still no consensus on the most effective repair protocol. The aim of this study is to measure the roughness values of eight different surface treatments for the repair procedure, to examine the effect of each surface treatment and three different composites on the repair bond strength with and without silane, and to evaluate whether there is a correlation between bond strength and roughness. Methods: The blocks were prepared with Filtek Z550 (3M ESPE) for the roughness measurements and divided into eight groups according to surface treatments. The roughness values of the surface treatments were measured by a 3D scanning contact profilometer (Nanomap LS). For the shear test, further samples were prepared, aged, and divided into three subgroups for the repair procedure with Filtek Z550 (3M ESPE), Vertise Flow (Kerr, USA), and G-aenial Flo (GC, Japan) after the surface treatments. Then, the shear test was performed. The Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman's Correlation tests were used for statistical evaluation of the data. Results: Significant differences were found between surface treatments and composite resins in terms of bond strength (p<0.05). There is no correlation between the roughness and bond strength values. Conclusions: In bond strength, surface topography is more important than the numerical value of roughness. In the repair of composite restorations, methods that are already in clinical practice and more practical can be used instead of methods that require additional costs and devices.
dc.description.sponsorshipCumhuriyet University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was supported by Cumhuriyet University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit.
dc.identifier.doi10.1089/photob.2018.4585
dc.identifier.endpage482
dc.identifier.issn2578-5478
dc.identifier.issue8
dc.identifier.pmid31081715
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85070465760
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3
dc.identifier.startpage473
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1089/photob.2018.4585
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/29149
dc.identifier.volume37
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000489592700004
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMary Ann Liebert, Inc
dc.relation.ispartofPhotobiomodulation Photomedicine and Laser Surgery
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectcomposite repair
dc.subjectair abrasion
dc.subjectEr:YAG laser
dc.subjectbond strength
dc.subjectroughness
dc.subjectG-aenial Flo
dc.subjectVertise Flow
dc.subject3D scanning contact profilometer
dc.titleEffect of Different Surface Treatments and Roughness on the Repair Bond Strength of Aged Nanohybrid Composite
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu