Browsing by Author "Cetinsahin, Cem"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2

Effect of different denture cleansers on surface roughness and microhardness of artificial denture teeth
(2016) Yuzugullu, Bulem; Acar, Ozlem; Cetinsahin, Cem; Celik, Cigdem; 27826382
PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of different denture cleansers on the surface roughness and microhardness of various types of posterior denture teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 168 artificial tooth specimens were divided into the following four subgroups (n=42): SR Orthotyp PE (polymethylmethacrylate); SR Orthosit PE (Isosit); SR Postaris DCL (double cross-linked); and SR Phonares II (nanohybrid composite). The specimens were further divided according to the type of.the denture cleanser (Corega Tabs (sodium perborate), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), and distilled water (control) (n=14)) and immersed in the cleanser to simulate a 180-day immersion period, after which the surface roughness and microhardness were tested. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal Wallis test, Conover's nonparametric multiple comparison test, and Spearman's rank correlation analysis (P<.05). RESULTS. A comparison among the denture cleanser groups showed that NaOCl caused significantly higher roughness values on SR Orthotyp PE specimens when compared with the other artificial teeth (P<.001). Furthermore, Corega Tabs resulted in higher microhardness values in SR Orthotyp PE specimens than distilled water and NaOCl (P<.005). The microhardness values decreased significantly from distilled water, NaOCl, to Corega Tabs for SR Orthosit PE specimens (P<.001). SR Postaris DLC specimens showed increased microhardness when immersed in distilled water or NaOCl when compared with immersion in Corega Tabs (P<.003). No correlation was found between surface roughness and microhardness (r=0.104, P=.178). CONCLUSION. NaOCl and Corega Tabs affected the surface roughness and microhardness of all artificial denture teeth except for the new generation nanohybrid composite teeth.
Implant Impression Techniques using Different Materials and Methods: A Review
(2022) Yasar, Muhammed Necati; Cetinsahin, Cem; Bayar, Omer; Ozer, Hasan Yildrim
Dental implants have emerged as the treatment of choice in for restoring missing teeth in situations that require functional and aesthetic replacements. Reproduction of the position and orientation of intraoral implants by means of an accurate impression in the definitive cast is the first step in achieving a passively fitting multi-implant supported prosthesis, to decrease the mechanical and biological complication of the prosthesis. The accuracy of the impression making procedure in the usage of osseointegrated implants used for the rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients is a very important factor for the long-term success of dental implants. It has been reported that the precision of implant impressions is affected by various factors such as impression materials, impression technique, splinting of impression posts, impression level and depth, as well as the angle of the implants. Also, the incompatibility between implant and prosthesis, which may occur as a result of an incorrect impression, may cause problems such as screw loosening, screw fracture, loss of osseointegration and even implant fracture. Today, there are many articles and reviews about implant impressions. Although the authors found consistent results in many studies, there are differences of opinion on some issues. In general, polyether and additional type silicones were found to be successful in the conventional impression technique. Digital impression technique, on the other hand, has been found as successful as conventional measurement techniques in some studies. Controversial results have been obtained about the number of implants and their angulation. In general, the direct open tray splinted impression method is recommended for four or more implants, while there was no difference between the direct or indirect method for three or less implants.