Browsing by Author "Kiremitci, Arlin"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Clinical comparison of a micro-hybride resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions: 36-month, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial
(2020) Koc Vural, Uzay; Kerimova, Leyla; Kiremitci, Arlin; 32902766
Purpose The aim of the study was to compare the 36-month clinical performances of a micro-hybride resin based composites (RBC) and a type II resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in the treatment of cervical caries lesions. Methods Thirty-three patients (23 females, 10 males) with at least two cervical caries lesions participated in this study. A total of 110 restorations were randomly placed, half using RBC (Spectrum TPH3, Dentsply Sirona) with respective adhesive system (Prime & Bond NT, Dentsply Sirona) the other half using the RMGIC (Riva Light Cure, SDI, Bayswater, Victoria, Australia). Restorations were assessed at baseline, and after 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months using modified USPHS criteria. The data were analyzed statistically (p < 0.05). Results Recall rate was 90.91% at 36 months. Of the RBC lesions 84.3% (n = 43) and of the RMGIC restorations 92.2% (n = 47) were fully retained at 36 months. There was no significant difference between two materials in terms of retention and marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). No relation was found between caries activity, cavity dimensions and marginal adaptation (p > 0.05) but RMGIC restorations showed significantly more discoloration than RBC restorations after 36 months (p < 0.001). Conclusions Considering the middle-term outcomes, both materials showed clinically successful performance in the treatment of cervical caries lesions.
A comparison of cuspal movement of premolar teeth restored with bulk-filled composite resins combined with universal adhesives
(2020) Kerimova, Leyla; Koc Vural, Uzay; Kiremitci, Arlin; 32278339
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to compare bulk-filled composite resins with conventional composites in terms of cuspal movement and micro-leakage scores. METHODS: Ninety-six maxillary premolar teeth with mesial-occclusal-distal cavities were allocated to four groups. Twelve teeth in each group was treated etch-and-rinse, self-etch or selective-etch (N.=8) protocols with respective adhesive system. Bucco-palatal cusp measurements were performed before and after preparation, and 180s after curing and then subjected to 5000 thermocyclws. After immersed in 0.2% basic fuchsin dye for 24h, cervical micro-leakage was evaluated. The data was analyzed by One-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey's honest Test (P<0.05). RESULTS: All groups and bonding protocols revealed no significant differences in total cuspal deflection measurement and micro-leakage scores. After preparation, a significant increase was found in bucco-palatal width of the teeth compared to baseline (P=0.002). There were no significant relationship among composite resins and adhesives (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cuspal relief after cavity preparation should be taken into account when evaluating deflection.
Effectiveness of two desensitizing products: A 6-month randomized clinical, split-mouth study
(2020) Kerimova, Leyla; Kiremitci, Arlin; 33439563
Purpose: This randomized controlled clinical trial compared the efficacy of a desensitizer containing calcium phosphate with a two-step self-etch adhesive and placebo over a 6-month period. Methods: 50 subjects aged between 2164 years with a sensitivity score of 6 or higher according to the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in at least three teeth participated in this study. Teethmate Desensitizer, Clearfil SE Bond 2, and placebo (distilled water) were applied randomly to three teeth of each patient. Recall reviews were performed at baseline, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment, and the sensitivity scores were assessed by air-blast application. The normality of data was analyzed with Shapiro-Wilk. Since the placebo treatment was successful only in a small number of teeth, the three materials could only be compared 10 minutes after the treatment. Data were analyzed with Wilcoxon Test, Friedman and Dunn post-hoc tests (P= 0.05). Results: Sensitivity decreased significantly after application for each of the three test groups when compared to the pretreatment condition (P< 0.05). There were no significant differences between the Teethmate Desensitizer and Clearfil SE Bond 2, and both materials were more effective than the placebo (P< 0.05).