Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi / Faculty of Dentistry

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/2120

Browse

Filters

2014 - 201912020 - 20242

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Cehreli, Sevi BurcakSubject: search.filters.subject.dental materials

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Is The Repair Bond Strength Affected When Substrate And Repair Composite Are Not Of The Same Kind? A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis: Effect Of Repair Composite On Repair Bond Strength
    (Başkent Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, 2024-03-21) Kose, Leyla Kerimova; Isik, Hatice; Eyuboglu, Tan Firat; Ozcan, Mutlu; Cehreli, Sevi Burcak; Arhun, Neslihan
    The aim was to evaluate the influence of repair resin type on repair bond strength in the direct resin restorations through a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, BBO, and LILACS were searched, and the reference lists of relevant studies were further hand-searched. A total of 15,709 articles that were browsed yielding to a final of five studies were included in meta-analysis. Analyses were performed using R software with the 'metafor' package, with standardized mean differences employed. A multi-level meta-analysis was conducted utilizing restricted maximum-likelihood estimates (p <= .05). In the shear bond strength group, significant heterogeneity was observed (Q = 50.274, p < .0001), whereas no significant heterogeneity was detected in the microtensile bond strength group (Q = 5.102, p = .4063). Separate analyses of both shear bond strength and microtensile bond strength groups showed no statistically significant differences between dissimilar and similar materials (p > .05). Egger's regression indicated no evidence of publication bias in either group. Sensitivity analyses revealed statistically insignificant pooled effect sizes for shear bond strength. In the microtensile group, one study influenced the results when excluded from the analysis. It could be suggested that the repair of composite resin with the same kind of resin composite is not mandatory.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Is The Repair Bond Strength Affected When Substrate And Repair Composite Are Not Of The Same Kind? A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis: Effect Of Repair Composite On Repair Bond Strength
    (Başkent Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, 2024-03-21) Kose, Leyla Kerimova; Isik, Hatice; Eyuboglu, Tan Firat; Ozcan, Mutlu; Cehreli, Sevi Burcak; Arhun, Neslihan
    The aim was to evaluate the influence of repair resin type on repair bond strength in the direct resin restorations through a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, BBO, and LILACS were searched, and the reference lists of relevant studies were further hand-searched. A total of 15,709 articles that were browsed yielding to a final of five studies were included in meta-analysis. Analyses were performed using R software with the 'metafor' package, with standardized mean differences employed. A multi-level meta-analysis was conducted utilizing restricted maximum-likelihood estimates (p <= .05). In the shear bond strength group, significant heterogeneity was observed (Q = 50.274, p < .0001), whereas no significant heterogeneity was detected in the microtensile bond strength group (Q = 5.102, p = .4063). Separate analyses of both shear bond strength and microtensile bond strength groups showed no statistically significant differences between dissimilar and similar materials (p > .05). Egger's regression indicated no evidence of publication bias in either group. Sensitivity analyses revealed statistically insignificant pooled effect sizes for shear bond strength. In the microtensile group, one study influenced the results when excluded from the analysis. It could be suggested that the repair of composite resin with the same kind of resin composite is not mandatory.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Comparison of Microleakage of A Multi-Mode Adhesive System with Contemporary Adhesives in Class II Resin Restorations
    (2014) Tuncer, Duygu; Celik, Cigdem; Cehreli, Sevi Burcak; Arhun, Neslihan; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5936-0196; AAA-1576-2021; AAD-6138-2021; R-2536-2019
    Aim: The aim was to compare the microleakage of resin composite bonded with different adhesive systems in class-II cavities at enamel or dentine margins. Material and methods: 60 extracted human molar teeth received slot cavity preparations on mesial and distal surfaces (mesial cervical margin was prepared in enamel and distal in dentine). They were randomly divided into five groups (n=12) according to the adhesive system: Group-A: Silorane Bond (S), Group-B: Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), Group-C: Clearfil SE Bond (CSE), Group-D: Single Bond Universal (USel) (selective etch-and-rinse), Group-E: Single Bond Universal (USE) (all-in-one). The preparations were restored using the same resin composite (Filtek Ultimate) except Group A which was restored by Silorane composite. The teeth were thermocycled, immersed in dye, sectioned, and dye penetration was evaluated quantitatively using image analysis. The data were analyzed using the two-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni test. Results: In all groups, there was no statistically significant difference between enamel margins at occlusal and gingival sites (p>0.05). The statistical difference between Group-A (S) and Group-B (SB) was significant at all margins. Group-B (SB) presented the greatest microleakage amounts at all margins and the highest scores were obtained in the dentine. Likewise, SB demonstrated statistically significant differences between dentine and enamel margins (occlusal and gingival)(p<0.05). Conclusion: All adhesive systems showed similar microleakage values between enamel margins in occlusal and gingival regions. However, when the gingival margin is located in the dentine, etch&rinse adhesive systems may not be a choice in terms of microleakage prevention.