Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorÜnal, Murat
dc.contributor.authorCandan, Merve
dc.contributor.authorİpek, İrem
dc.contributor.authorKüçükoflaz, Merve
dc.contributor.authorÖzer, Ali
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-13T10:28:08Z
dc.date.available2022-05-13T10:28:08Z
dc.date.issued2021tr
dc.identifier.citationÜnal, M, Candan, M, İpek, İ, Küçükoflaz, M, Özer, A. Evaluation of the microhardness of different resin-based dental restorative materials treated with gastric acid: Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy analysis. Microsc Res Tech. 2021; 84: 2140– 2148. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23769tr
dc.identifier.urihttps://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jemt.23769
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/13016
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study is to evaluate the microhardness, relative surface roughness, and elemental changes of resin-based dental restorative materials (RDRMs) after gastric acid treatment. Five different RDRMs (Group 1 [Filtek Z550], Group 2 [Beautifil II], Group 3 [Vertise Flow], Group 4 [Dyract XP], Group 5 [Fuji II LC]) were used. Samples were formed by using plexiglass molds of 10 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness. A total of 50 samples (n = 10) for microhardness tests and a total of 15 samples (n = 3) for scanning electron microscopy (SEM)–energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analysis were prepared. All samples of each group were treated to gastric acid, simultaneously. A Vickers microhardness tester was used to evaluate the microhardness of the upper surfaces of each sample. SEM–EDX system was used for microstructure and elemental composition detection. The SEM–EDX, microhardness and relative surface roughness analysis were made prior to treatment in gastric acid for 14 days and analysis were repeated on the 14th day. As the difference in the microhardness values of RDRMs was compared, the time-dependent variation in all RDRMs was found to be statistically significant. It was observed that a drastic decrease in microhardness values was in Beautifil II, Filtek Z550, Vertise Flow, Fuji II LC, and Dyract XP, respectively. Average decrease rate of microhardness values compared to the initial state can be listed from high to low as Beautifil II (%35.72), Vertise Flow (% 28.88), Fuji II LC (% 21.09), Dyract XP (%17.60), and Filtek Z550 (% 16.58). As a result, in in-vitro conditions gastric acid decreased microhardness while increasing the relative surface roughness of RDRMs.tr
dc.language.isoengtr
dc.publisherWileytr
dc.relation.isversionof10.1002/jemt.23769tr
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesstr
dc.subjectgastric acidtr
dc.subjectmicrohardnesstr
dc.subjectrelative surface roughnesstr
dc.subjectSEM–EDXtr
dc.titleEvaluation of the microhardness of different resin-based dental restorative materials treated with gastric acid: Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy analysistr
dc.typearticletr
dc.relation.journalMicroscopy Research and Techniquetr
dc.contributor.departmentMühendislik Fakültesitr
dc.contributor.authorID0000-0002-4207-8207tr
dc.identifier.volume84tr
dc.identifier.endpage2148tr
dc.identifier.startpage2140tr
dc.relation.publicationcategoryUluslararası Hakemli Dergide Makale - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıtr


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record