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

2021 - 20232
Reset filters

Settings

Author: TARÇIN, BİLGE ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • 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.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    PublicationMetadata only
    Effect of Polyethylene Fiber on Fracture Resistance of Bulk-fill Composites
    (2023-07-03) MANAV, AYBİKE; DOĞU, BENGÜ; YILMAZ ATALI, PINAR; KAHRAMANOĞLU, ERKUT; ŞENOL, AYŞE ASLI; TARÇIN, BİLGE; TÜRKMEN, CAFER; MANAV ÖZEN A., DOĞU KAYA B., YILMAZ ATALI P., KAHRAMANOĞLU E., ŞENOL A. A., TARÇIN B., TÜRKMEN C.
    Introduction: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of sonic-activated SonicFill3 (SF) (Kerr) and flowable Charisma Bulk Flow ONE (CO) (Kulzer) bulk-fill composites with or without polyethylene-fiber (R) (Ribbond) application. Materials and Methods: Class I cavities (2x2x4mm) were prepared on 40 freshly extracted human premolars of similar size and classified randomly into 4 groups (SF, SF+R, CO, CO+R). The remaining wall thicknesses of the teeth was confirmed to be 2mm. Ribbond fiber (2x2mm) was applied to cavity bases of the acryl-embedded teeth according to manufacturers’ instructions and OptiBond (Kerr) (for SF, SF+R groups) and Gluma Bond (Kulzer) (for CO, CO+R groups) universal adhesives were used. All specimens were restored in a 4mm monolayer with SF and CO. Valo Cordless (Ultradent) LED-curing unit with a power output of 1000 mW/cm2 was preferred for polymerization. Finishing and polishing were completed with the last 2 stages of Sof-Lex discs (Kerr). Restored teeth were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours. Fracture resistance (FS) and elastic modulus (EM) values were measured with a universal testing device (Shimadzu AG-X, Shimadzu Corp, Japan). Data were analyzed with IBM SPSS V23 using Independent samples T-test. The significance level was set at p<0.05. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the bulk-fill composites (SF and CO) without R (p=0.167). Similarly, no significant difference was detected between the Ribbond fiber applied groups (SF+R and CO+R) (p=0.994). The effect of fiber application on FS of SF (p=0.421) and CO (p=0.552) was not statistically significant. The mean maximum force values (newtons) in decreasing order were CO (761.09±224.32) > SF+R (671.08±150.51) > CO+R (669.95±358.44) > SF (580.7±269.04). The EM values of SF and CO were statistically significantly different (p=0.009). A statistically significant difference was observed between the EM values in the Ribbond fiber applied groups (SF+R and CO+R) (p=0.026). EM values of CO were statistically significantly higher regardless of Ribbond application (p<0.001). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the application of SonicFill3 and Charisma Bulk Flow ONE composites with Ribbond may be an option for clinical applications. Keywords: bulk-fill composite, elastic modulus, fracture resistance, polyethylene fiber