dc.contributor.author | Karaman, Emel | |
dc.contributor.author | Yazıcı, A. Ruya | |
dc.contributor.author | Aksoy, Burak | |
dc.contributor.author | Karabulut, Erdem | |
dc.contributor.author | Ozgunaltay, Gul | |
dc.contributor.author | Dayangac, Berrin | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-12-16T07:17:58Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-12-16T07:17:58Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1305-7456 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.119075 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4054081/ | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11655/19229 | |
dc.description.abstract | Objective: 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.isversionof | 10.4103/1305-7456.119075 | |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
dc.title | Effect of Operator Variability on Microleakage With Different Adhesive Systems | |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | |
dc.relation.journal | European Journal of Dentistry | |
dc.contributor.department | Restoratif Diş Tedavisi | |
dc.identifier.volume | 7 | |
dc.identifier.issue | Suppl 1 | |
dc.identifier.startpage | S60 | |
dc.identifier.endpage | S65 | |
dc.description.index | PubMed | |
dc.description.index | Scopus | |