Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorŞişmanoğlu, Soner
dc.contributor.authorGürcan, Aliye Tuğçe
dc.contributor.authorYıldırım-Bilmez, Zuhal
dc.contributor.authorTurunç-Oğuzman, Rana
dc.contributor.authorGümüştaş, Burak
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-16T13:09:30Z
dc.date.available2020-04-16T13:09:30Z
dc.date.issued2020en_US
dc.identifier.citationŞişmanoğlu, S., Gürcan, A. T., Yıldırım-Bilmez, Z., Turunç-Oğuzman, R. ve Gümüştaş, B. (2020). Effect of surface treatments and universal adhesive application on the microshear bond strength of CAD/CAM materials. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics, 12(1), 22-32. https://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.1.22en_US
dc.identifier.issn2005-7806
dc.identifier.issn2005-7814
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12511/5135
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.1.22
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microshear bond strength (mu SBS) of four computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) blocks repaired with composite resin using three different surface treatment protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four different CAD/CAM blocks were used in this study: (1) flexible hybrid ceramic (FHC), (2) resin nanoceramic (RNC), (c) polymer infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) and (4) feldspar ceramic (FC). All groups were further divided into four subgroups according to surface treatment: control, hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), air-borne particle abrasion with aluminum oxide (AlO), and tribochemical silica coating (TSC). After surface treatments, silane was applied to half of the specimens. Then, a silane-containing universal adhesive was applied, and specimens were repaired with a composite, Next, mu SBS test was performed. Additional specimens were examined with a contact profilometer and scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey tests. RESULTS. The findings revealed that silane application yielded higher mu SBS values (P<.05). All surface treatments were showed a significant increase in mu SBS values compared to the control (P<.05). For FHC and RNC, the most influential treatments were AlO and TSC (P<.05). CONCLUSION. Surface treatment is mandatory when the silane is not preferred, but the best bond strength values were obtained with the combination of surface treatment and silane application. HF provides improved bond strength when the ceramic content of material increases, whereas AlO and TSC gives improved bond strength when the composite content of material increases.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherKorean Academy of Prosthodonticsen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/*
dc.subjectDental Restoration Repairen_US
dc.subjectCeramicsen_US
dc.subjectShear Strengthen_US
dc.subjectDental Bondingen_US
dc.titleEffect of surface treatments and universal adhesive application on the microshear bond strength of CAD/CAM materialsen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalJournal of Advanced Prosthodonticsen_US
dc.departmentİstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Ana Bilim Dalıen_US
dc.authorid0000-0002-7538-1763en_US
dc.identifier.volume12en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage22en_US
dc.identifier.endpage32en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4047/jap.2020.12.1.22en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess