Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKaraman, Emel
dc.contributor.authorYazıcı, A. Ruya
dc.contributor.authorAksoy, Burak
dc.contributor.authorKarabulut, Erdem
dc.contributor.authorOzgunaltay, Gul
dc.contributor.authorDayangac, Berrin
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-16T07:17:58Z
dc.date.available2019-12-16T07:17:58Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.issn1305-7456
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.119075
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4054081/
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11655/19229
dc.description.abstractObjective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of operator variability on microleakage with different adhesive systems. Materials and Methods: A total of 180 standardized Class V cavities were prepared on facial and lingual of 90 extracted human premolar teeth and randomly assigned to five groups according to the adhesive systems used (n = 36): Prime and Bond NT (PB), Single Bond (SB), Futura Bond NR, Xeno III (XE) and Adper Prompt-L-Pop (LP). The adhesive groups were then further subdivided into three operator groups according to level of clinical experience (n = 12): An undergraduate student, a research assistant and a faculty member. All cavities were restored with same composite resin. The restored teeth were thermocycled (500 cycles, 5-55°C) then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin and measured for leakage under a stereomicroscope. Statistical analyses were performed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Significant inter-operator variation was found in the enamel margins in the XE group with significantly higher microleakage when used by the undergraduate student (P < 0.05). Although no significant differences in microleakage were found between adhesive systems for the research assistant and faculty member (P > 0.05), significant differences were observed between PB and LP, PB and XE, SB and LP and SB and XE in the enamel margins for the undergraduate student (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Microleakage of adhesive systems is more dependent on interactions between the operator and adhesive material than on the choice of adhesive material.
dc.relation.isversionof10.4103/1305-7456.119075
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleEffect of Operator Variability on Microleakage With Different Adhesive Systems
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.relation.journalEuropean Journal of Dentistry
dc.contributor.departmentRestoratif Diş Tedavisi
dc.identifier.volume7
dc.identifier.issueSuppl 1
dc.identifier.startpageS60
dc.identifier.endpageS65
dc.description.indexPubMed
dc.description.indexScopus


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record