SavedAdd your journal

Journals / 7tepe Klinik / 2018 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1

An in vitro evaluation of the efects of diferent acidic beverages on the surface hardness of restorative materials.

Farklı asidik içeceklerin restoratif materyallerin yüzey sertliklerine olan etkilerinin in-vitro olarak değerlendirilmesi

Ebru Uslu CENDER
Prof Dr Eda GÜLER
Pages
35–41
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: In conclusion, the beverages used in this study affected the surface hardness of the restorative materials investigated differently

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of different acidic beverages on the surface hardness of restorative materials which are frequently used in clinical practices.Materials and Methods: In this study, cola, sour cherry juice, apple juice, energy drink and orange juice were used as acidic beverages while two composite resins (Filtek Silorane, Filtek Z-550), one flowable composite (Filtek Ultimate Flowable), one compomer (Dyract Extra) and one resin modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) served as restorative materials to be tested.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The liquids used in the study, except the artificial saliva, had statistically similar effects on the surface hardness values of the materials used (p<0.05).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: In conclusion, the beverages used in this study affected the surface hardness of the restorative materials investigated differently
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of different acidic beverages on the surface hardness of restorative materials which are frequently used in clinical practices.Materials and Methods: In this study, cola, sour cherry juice, apple juice, energy drink and orange juice were used as acidic beverages while two composite resins (Filtek Silorane, Filtek Z-550), one flowable composite (Filtek Ultimate Flowable), one compomer (Dyract Extra) and one resin modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) served as restorative materials to be tested. After measuring the initial surface hardness of the samples with Barcol surface hardness tester, each sample was put into acidic beverage for five seconds after which they were placed in artificial saliva for five seconds. This cycle was repeated ten times daily for one month. The control group was stored in the artificial saliva without any exposure to this cycle. At the end of the one-month-period, surface hardness of the restorative materials were measured again.Statistical analysis used: “Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance” and “Tukey’s Multiple Range Test” were used for statistical analysis.Results: The restorative materials were affected by the acidic beverages. The liquids used in the study, except the artificial saliva, had statistically similar effects on the surface hardness values of the materials used (p<0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, the beverages used in this study affected the surface hardness of the restorative materials investigated differently

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı; farklı asidik içeceklerin kliniklerimizde sıkça kullanılan restoratif materyallerin yüzey sertlikleri üzerine etkilerini incelemektir.Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmada asidik içecekler olarak kola, vişne suyu, elma suyu, enerji içeceği ve portakal suyu; restoratif materyal olarak ise iki adet kompozit rezin (Filtek Silorane, Filtek Z-550), bir adet akışkan kompozit (Filtek Ultimate Flowable), bir adet kompomer (Dyract Extra) ve bir adet rezin modifiye cam iyonomer (Fuji II LC) kullanıldı. Başlangıç yüzey sertlik değerleri Barcol yüzey sertlik ölçüm metodu ile ölçüldükten sonra her bir örnek 1 ay boyunca toplam 10 döngü olmak üzere; 5 sn asidik içecek, 5 sn yapay tükürükte bekletildi. Kontrol grubu, örnekler döngüye tabi tutulmaksızın yapay tükürük içerisinde saklandı. 1 ayın sonunda restoratif materyallerin yüzey sertlikleri tekrar ölçüldü. İstatistiksel değerlendirme "Tekrarlanan Ölçümlü Varyans Analizi" ve "Tukey çoklu karşılaştırma testi" ile yapıldı.Bulgular: Restoratif materyaller asidik içecekten etkilenmiştir. Deneyde kullanılan sıvılardan yapay tükürük dışındaki sıvılar, kullanılan materyallerin yüzey sertlik değerleri üzerinde istatistiksel olarak benzer etki göstermiştir (p<0,05). Sonuç: Sonuç olarak, bu çalışmada kullanılan içecekler, incelenen restoratif materyallerin yüzey sertliklerini farklı şekillerde etkilemişlerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

CENDER, E. U., GÜLER, P. D. E. (2022). An in vitro evaluation of the efects of diferent acidic beverages on the surface hardness of restorative materials.. 7tepe Klinik, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 1, 35–41. https://ajindex.com/articles/426289

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Toz Akalin T. Kusdemir M. Gozukara Bag H. Clinical evaluation of 107 anterior teeth restored with direct nanofilled resin composite: up to 32 months. Yeditepe J Dent 2016; 12: 21-28
  2. Luiz BKM,. Effect of drinks on the surface properties of dental composites. Polym Test 2007; 26: 855-861
  3. Ferracane JL. Resin composite—State of the art. Dent Mater 2011; 27: 29–38
  4. Sakaguchi RL, Mitra SB. Restorative materials-Composites and polymers. In: Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM, editors. Craig’s restorative dental materials. 13th. United States, Mosby Inc. 2012; 9: 160-198
  5. Ertas E, Guler AU, Yucel AC, Koprulu H, Guler E. Color stability of resin composites after immersion in different drinks. Dent Mater J 2006; 25: 371-376
  6. Baltacioglu IH. A comparison of nanohybrid containing composites with regard to micro leakage with different curing lights. Ankara University, Institute of Health Sciences, Ankara, Doctorate thesis, 2011; 3-30
  7. Dayangac BG. Kompozit rezinler. In: Kompozit Restorasyonlar. 2. baskı, İstanbul, Quintessence 2011a; 1: 1-25
  8. Yikilgan I, Gurel MA, Bala O, Omurlu H. A comparison of the water absorption and solubility of different aesthetic restorative materials. J Dent Gazi Univ 2010; 27: 93-98
  9. Nicholson JW. Polyacid-modified composite resins “compomers” and their use in clinical dentistry. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 615–622
  10. Hse KMY, Leung SK, Wei SHY. Resin-ionomer restorative materials for children: A review. Aust Dent J 1999; 44:1-11
  11. Moore KB, Avery DR. Dental materials. In: McDonald RE, Avery DR, Dean JA, editors. Dentistry for the child and adolescent. 8th. USA, Mosby. 2004; 16: 333-352
  12. Berzins DW, Abey S, Costache MC, Wilkie CA, Roberts HW. Resin modified glass-ionomer setting reaction competition. J Dent Res 2010; 89:82-86
  13. Deliktas D, Ulusoy N. The effects of different curing lights on the surface hardness of hybrid and nanohybrid composit resins. AU Dishek Fak Derg 2006; 31: 1-10
  14. Cogulu D, Ersin N, Topaloglu-Ak A. An evaluation of the effect of acidic beverages on the surface hardness of three different restorative materials. Dicle Dishek Derg 2008; 9: 7-12
  15. Anusavice KJ. Mechanical properties of dental materials. In: Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls RH, editors. Phillips' science of dental materials. l2th. China, Elsevier Saunders. 2012; 4: 48-68
  16. Grippo JO, Simring M. Dental erosion revisited. JADA 1995; 126: 619-630
  17. Lussi A, Jaeggi T, Zero D. The role of diet in aetiology of dental erosion. Carie