Person:
TÜRKMEN, CAFER

Profile Picture

Email Address

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

OrgUnit Logo
Organizational Unit

Job Title

Last Name

TÜRKMEN

First Name

CAFER

Name

Filters

20212
Reset filters

Settings

Author: KORKUT, BORA ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    PublicationMetadata only
    Longevity of direct diastema closure and recontouring restorations with resin composites in maxillary anterior teeth: A 4-year clinical evaluation
    (WILEY, 2021) KORKUT, BORA; Korkut, Bora; Turkmen, Cafer
    Objectives To evaluate the clinical performance of resin composite restorations and to investigate causes of failure. Materials and Methods The longevity of 216 restorations in 53 patients (mean age, 33.3 years) was retrospectively evaluated according to Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria. Dental history and photographic data were used to evaluate diastema closure (n = 199) and recontouring (n = 19) restorations comprising microhybrid (Essentia Universal, GC Corp.), nanohybrid (Ceram.x One, Dentsply Sirona), and nanofilled (Estelite Asteria, Tokuyama Dental) composites. Data were analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier log-rank test, Cox regression analysis, Pearson chi-square test. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The overall survival rate was 90.3 % and the mean survival duration was 46.2 months during the for 4 - year study period. The annual failure rate was 0.9 % - 3.4 %. Mean survival durations for diastema closure and recontouring restorations were 46.2 and 45.9 months, respectively (p = 0.328). Mean survival durations for Essentia Universal, Estelite Asteria, and Ceram.x One were 46.1, 46.7, and 45.7 months, respectively (p = 0.677). If we include failed restorations that were repaired and remained functional, the overall survival rate was 100 %. Conclusion Longevity was similar among composites and restoration types. The long-term clinical performance of monochromatic anterior composite restorations was robust. Composite repair may be suitable for diastema closure and recontouring restorations. Clinical Significance There is a lack of long-term clinical evidence regarding the performance of direct anterior composite restorations. Monochromatic direct composite restorations may meet both the esthetic and functional expectations with even simpler restorative techniques. This 4 - year follow-up study evaluated the clinical performance of monochromatic anterior diastema closure and recontouring restorations with three different composite materials. The longevity of the restorations and the reasons for failure were investigated.
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Effect of Modeling Resins on Microhardness of Resin Composites
    (2021-07) KORKUT, BORA; Bayraktar, Ezgi T.; Atali, Pinar Y.; Korkut, Bora; Kesimli, Ezgi G.; Tarcin, Bilge; Turkmen, Cafer
    Abstract Objectives This study was aimed to determine the effects of modeling resins on the surface microhardness of composites. Materials and Methods Six resin-based composites (Charisma Smart, Estellite Asteria, CeramX-One SphereTEC, Admira Fusion, Filtek Ultimate, and Clearfil Majesty Es-2) and three wetting agents (Modeling Liquid, Composite Primer, and Modeling Resin) were investigated. In all, 240 specimens were prepared, and wetting agents were applied prior to light curing in the experimental groups. After 24 hours, specimens were polished and Vickers microhardness (VHN) values were measured. Statistical Analysis Shapiro–Wilk and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for analyses (p < 0.05). Results Both modeling resin and composites were determined to be effective factors (p < 0.001). The control group showed the highest VHN (70.37 ± 7.94), followed by Modeling Liquid (64.68 ± 12.07), Composite Primer (59.84 ± 6.33), and Modeling Resin (58 ± 3.52b; p < 0.001). Filtek Ultimate showed the highest VHN (76.62 ± 9.78c), whereas Charisma Smart (58.87 ± 7.95), and Clearfil Majesty (67.27 ± 2.58) showed the lowest (p < 0.001). Clearfil Majesty–Modeling Liquid (46.62 ± 5.33) and Charisma Smart–Composite Primer (50.81 ± 0.39) combinations showed the lowest VHN, whereas Filtek Ultimate–control (87.15 ± 2.12) and Filtek Ultimate–Modeling Liquid (84.24 ± 3.11) showed the highest (p < 0.001). Conclusion All tested modeling resins decreased VHN value, and the amount of reduction varied among composites and wetting agents. It might be safer not to use wetting agents unless they are necessary.