Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorElekdag-Turk, Selma
dc.contributor.authorIsci, Devrim
dc.contributor.authorOzkalayci, Nurhat
dc.contributor.authorTurk, Tamer
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T15:07:15Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T15:07:15Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.issn0141-5387
dc.identifier.issn1460-2210
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn067
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/18795
dc.descriptionOzkalayci, Nurhat/0000-0002-5538-6233; Elekdag-Turk, Selma/0000-0002-2799-6501en_US
dc.descriptionWOS: 000262718800012en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 19164413en_US
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and debonding characteristics of a polymer mesh base ceramic bracket bonded with two different surface conditioning methods. InVu Readi-Base ceramic brackets were bonded to 100 human premolars with different etching protocols. With conventional method (CM), the teeth were etched with 37 per cent phosphoric acid for 30 seconds, while Transbond Plus self-etching primer (SEP) was applied as recommended by the manufacturer. SBS testing was performed on 25 samples of each group while the remaining 25 samples of each group were subjected to plier or machine debonding after thermocycling for 1000 cycles. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to determine the amount of composite resin on the enamel. Statistical analysis included Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests and Weibull analysis. No significant difference was observed between the CM (9.22 MPa) and SEP (9.04 MPa) groups (P = 0.684). ARI scores of machine and plier debonding for both groups showed a significant difference (P <= 0.0001). Debonding with pliers showed a pronounced number of ARI scores of 3 for both groups. Polymer mesh base fractures were observed for both groups. Nevertheless, no significant differences were observed between the groups (chi(2) = 4.304, P = 0.230). The results of this in vitro study are encouraging, since, for the majority of specimens, all of the residual adhesive remained on the enamel surface. This type of debonding pattern has the advantage of protecting the enamel surface. Nevertheless, the base fractures at the ceramic/polymer interface might necessitate modifications in debonding strategy.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherOxford Univ Pressen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1093/ejo/cjn067en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.titleDebonding characteristics of a polymer mesh base ceramic bracket bonded with two different conditioning methodsen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume31en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage84en_US
dc.identifier.endpage89en_US
dc.relation.journalEuropean Journal of Orthodonticsen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster