Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAkin, Gulsah E.
dc.contributor.authorHerguner-Siso, Seyda
dc.contributor.authorOzcan, Mutlu
dc.contributor.authorOzel-Bektas, Ozden
dc.contributor.authorAkin, Hakan
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-28T10:03:56Z
dc.date.available2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.available2019-07-28T10:03:56Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.issn1549-5418
dc.identifier.issn1557-8550
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1089/pho.2011.3170
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/9192
dc.descriptionWOS: 000302776100005en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 22420776en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) of one-step self-etch adhesive systems to Er:YAG laser-irradiated and bur-cut dentin after water storage and thermocycling. Background data: The Er:YAG laser is a promising alternative method for cavity preparation; however, no study has compared the effect of laser irradiation and aging procedures on the adhesion of one-step self-etch adhesives to dentin. Methods: Seventy-two third molars were selected and randomly divided according to cavity preparation method (Er:YAG laser and bur-cut). One-step self-etch adhesive systems (Clearfil S-3 Bond, AdheSE One and Adper Easy One) were used to bond the composite to dentin. Following the adhesive procedure, the specimens were subdivided according to aging conditions (24 h in water control [C], 6 months of water storage [WS] and 10.000 thermocycles [TC]). The mu TBS was determined in a universal testing machine. Three-way ANOVA, independent samples t test, and post-hoc comparisons test (alpha = 0.05) were performed on all data. Results: There was no statistical difference in mu TBS between Er:YAG laser-irradiated and bur-cut dentin (p > 0.05). Similarly, no significant difference was found in mu TBS between C, WS, and TC specimens (p > 0.05). Moreover, Clearfil S-3 Bond presented the highest mu TBS to dentin in both laser-irradiated and bur-cut cavity preparation methods. Conclusions: Neither bur-cut nor Er:YAG laser-irradiated dentin was affected by the aging methods used to simulate degradation of the adhesive interface. Er: YAG laser treatment may be used as an alternative cavity preparation method.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipCumhuriyet Universityen_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis investigation was supported in part by the Cumhuriyet University Scientific Research Project.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMARY ANN LIEBERT, INCen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1089/pho.2011.3170en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.titleBond Strengths of One-Step Self-Etch Adhesives to Laser-Irradiated and Bur-Cut Dentin After Water Storage and Thermocyclingen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalPHOTOMEDICINE AND LASER SURGERYen_US
dc.contributor.department[Akin, Gulsah E. -- Ozel-Bektas, Ozden] Cumhuriyet Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Restorat Dent, TR-58140 Sivas, Turkey -- [Herguner-Siso, Seyda] Bezmialem Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Restorat Dent, Istanbul, Turkey -- [Ozcan, Mutlu] Univ Zurich, Clin Fixed & Removable Prosthodont & Dent Mat Sci, Ctr Dent & Oral Med, Dent Mat Unit, Zurich, Switzerland -- [Akin, Hakan] Cumhuriyet Univ, Dept Prosthodont, Fac Dent, TR-58140 Sivas, Turkeyen_US
dc.contributor.authorIDAkin, Hakan -- 0000-0002-4770-4297en_US
dc.identifier.volume30en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.endpage221en_US
dc.identifier.startpage214en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record