Browsing by Author "Yamanel, K."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Clinical Evaluation of Microhybrid Composites in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: 24-Month Results
(2017) Tuncer, D.; Celik, C.; Yamanel, K.; Arhun, N.; 0000-0002-5936-0196; 28091433; R-2536-2019; AAA-1576-2021
Objective: To evaluate the clinical performance of two different microhybrid resin composites in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) after 24 months. Subjects and Methods: Ninety-seven NCCLs were restored with either TPH Spectrum (n = 48) or Filtek Z250 (n = 49) using an etch-and-rinse adhesive in 20 patients. The restorations were clinically evaluated using modified United States Public Health Service criteria for retention, color match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, surface texture, anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries. The restorations were assessed 1 week after placement (baseline) and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Restoration survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier procedure estimator, and a log-rank test was used to compare the survival distributions (P < 0.05). Statistical analysis was undertaken using Pearson's Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test to assess differences among the restorative materials (P < 0.05). Cochran's Q-test was employed for evaluating differences in the same restorative material between recall periods. Results: The retention rates were 100% at 6 months, 89.6% and 91.8% at 12 months, and 85.4% and 89.8% at 24 months for TPH and Z250, respectively. TPH showed a statistically significant difference in marginal discoloration between the baseline and 24 months results (P < 0.05). Both TPH and Z250 showed statistically significant differences in marginal adaptation between the baseline and 24 months results (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Over the 24-month period, both microhybrid resin composites demonstrated acceptable clinical results in NCCLs.
Comparison of three adhesive systems in class II composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth: Influence of Er:YAG laser conditioning and gingival margin levels on microleakage
(2018) Onay, E.-O.; Yamanel, K.; Korkmaz-Ceyhan, Y.; Gulsahi, K.
Background: Dental surface conditioning by Er:YAG laser is currently being investigated, as not all of the mechanisms and effects of this technique have been clearly studied. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess the cervical microleakage of Class II resin composite restorations in endodontically treated teeth following either the respective conventional conditioning or additional Er:YAG laser conditioning, in association with varied adhesives. Material and Methods: Standardized mesial-occlusal-distal cavities (two gingival walls positioned in dentin and enamel, respectively) were created in 60 extracted human premolar teeth. Following the completion of the endodontic therapy, the teeth were grouped into six categories based on conditioning modality and adhesive strategy as follows: group 1-37% phosphoric acid/Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB2); group 2-Er:YAG laser/37% phosphoric acid/ ASB2; group 3-Clearfil SE Bond (CSE); group 4-Er:YAG laser/CSE; group 5-Adper Easy One (AEO); and group 6-Er:YAG laser/AEO. Specimens were submitted to thermocycling and dye penetration, followed by longitudinal sectioning. The dye penetration was evaluated using a stereomicroscope. One specimen from each group was assessed under a scanning electron microscope for adhesive interface analysis. Results: No significant differences were found between the conditioning modalities, nor between the adhesive systems at both margins. Groups 1 and 2 showed a lower degree of microleakage in the enamel vs. dentin (p = 0.002). Group 2 showed a significantly lower incidence of microleakage in enamel vs. dentin (p = 0.005). Conclusions: CSE and AEO were comparable with that of ASB2 regarding sealing ability. Additional Er:YAG laser conditioning may be beneficial before ASB2 application in enamel. © Medicina Oral S. L. C.I.F.
Effect of desensitizing tooth pastes hn dsfferent restorative materials' bond strength to coronal and root dentin
(2018) Yamanel, K.; Arhun, N.
Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of two desensitizing tooth-pastes on the shear bond strength of resin composite and glass ionomer restorative materials to coronal and root dentin. Materials and Methods: 108 human third molars' distal or mesial sides were ground flat with a silicon-carbide paper. The samples were randomly divided into 3-major groups (N=36) to be brushed with: GroupA: Sensodyne Rapid Relief; GroupB: Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief; GroupC: Colgate Total 12 toothpastes. Brushing was performed with tooth brushing simulator 2 times/day for 10 days with 10 strokes/brushing. They were further divided into three sub-groups (n=12) to receive the following adhesion protocols to coronal/root dentin. Group1: Clearfil SE Bond + Filtek Z250 Composite; Group2: Adper Single Bond2 + Filtek Z250Composite; Group3: Riva Glass Ionomer Cement. Samples were kept in distilled water for 24 hours. Shear bond strength test was performed with Universal Test Machine (cross head speed: 0.5 mm/sec). The data were evaluated statistically. Results: For all restorative techniques evaluated, the least shear bond strength values were obtained after Sensodyne Rapid Relief usage.Riva Glass Ionomer Cement demonstrated statistically significant inferior shear bond strength values than resin composite. Conclusion: Self-etch systems may be the choice for adhesion after desensitizing toothpaste usage. © 2018 Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry.
Effect of different prophylactic polishing procedures on the surface roughness of microhybrid and nanohybrid resin composites
(2018) Yamanel, K.
Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate effects of different professional dental prophylaxis procedures on the surface roughness of a microhybrid (Charisma, Heraeus-Kulzer) and a nanohybrid (Ice, SDI Dental) resin composites. Materials and Methods: 45 disc shaped (2 mm thick /8 mm in diameter) specimens of each restorative materials (totally 90 specimens) were prepared using plexyglass mold. Specimens were polished with medium, fine and ultra-fine Sof-Lex (3M-ESPE) discs and 45 specimens of each composite were randomly divided into five groups (n=9). The first group received no prophylaxis treatment and served as control. The other groups received prophlaxis procedures including Detartrine paste (Septodont) with rotating rubber cup, Gelato paste (Keystone Industries) with rotating rubber cup, pumice-water slurry with rotating rubber cup and pumice-water slurry with rotating brush. After prophlaxis procedures surface roughness values of all specimens were measured using an optical prophylometer (Zygo New View 7200, Ametek). Data was statistically analyzed using Mann Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis Tests at the 0.01 and 0.025 level of significance respectively. Results: The smoothest surfaces were observed in control groups for both resin composites (p < 0.001). Control groups' surface roughness values of resin composites tested were significantly different (p < 0.001). However there were no statistically significant differences between surface roughness values of microhybrid and nanohybrid resin composites that received same prophylaxis treatment. Gelato paste, pumice-water slurry with rotating rubber cup and pumice-water slurry with rotating brush caused significantly rougher surfaces than control group but surface roughness values obtained with Detartrine were not significantly different from the control group in both composites. Conclusions: All prophylaxis procedures tested in the study increased the roughness values of both composites to a level that would be retantive to bacteria. Because of that dental professional must be careful during prophylaxis procedures otherwise repolishing or rarely repair of the composite restoration would be necessary after prophylaxis. © 2018 Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry.