Arşiv logosu
  • Türkçe
  • English
  • Giriş
    Yeni kullanıcı mısınız? Kayıt için tıklayın. Şifrenizi mi unuttunuz?
Arşiv logosu
  • Koleksiyonlar
  • Sistem İçeriği
  • Analiz
  • Talep/Soru
  • Türkçe
  • English
  • Giriş
    Yeni kullanıcı mısınız? Kayıt için tıklayın. Şifrenizi mi unuttunuz?
  1. Ana Sayfa
  2. Yazara Göre Listele

Yazar "Yucel Yucel, Yasemin" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Sayfa Başına Sonuç
Sıralama seçenekleri
  • [ N/A ]
    Öğe
    Comparison of Elasticity Modulus and Nanohardness of Various Dental Restorative Materials
    (Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, 2021) Ozan, Gunce; Mert Eren, Meltem; Yıldırım Bılmez, Zuhal; Tugce Gurcan, Aliye; Yucel Yucel, Yasemin
    Introduction: Restorative materials are under constant loadings from mastication hence, it is important to have the knowledge of structural properties of the restorative materials to have long-term success on restorations. Therefore, the aim is to compare the nanohardness and elastic modulus values of various restorative materials. Methods: Disc-shaped samples were prepared from a high viscosity glass ionomer-Equia Forte Fil (EFF), a compomer-Dyract (DXP), a hybrid ionomer-Geristore (GS), a giomer bulk-fill-Beautifil-Bulk (BB), two bulk-fill composites-Venus Bulk-fill (VB) and Sonic Fill 2 (SF), and a nanohybrid composite-Z250. Samples of each of the tested materials (n=9) were examined under nanoindentation to evaluate elasticity modulus (Er) and nanohardness (Hnano) scores. One of the samples had undergone through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation. Data were analyzed statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: SF had the highest elasticity modulus, followed by Z250 and DXP, without any statistical differences. However, GS had the lowest elasticity modulus, followed by EFF (P<0.001). Among nanohardness scores, there is no significant difference between VB, EFF, DXP, Z250, and BB groups. While SF showed the highest, GS had the lowest nanohardness scores. SEM images showed the differences between filler sizes and shapes. Conclusion: Main structural differences between glass ionomer-based and resin-based materials determined significant differences among related parameters of the restorative materials. © 2021, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. All rights reserved.

| Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi | Kütüphane | Açık Erişim Politikası | Rehber | OAI-PMH |

Bu site Creative Commons Alıntı-Gayri Ticari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile korunmaktadır.


Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi, Hatay, TÜRKİYE
İçerikte herhangi bir hata görürseniz lütfen bize bildirin

DSpace 7.6.1, Powered by İdeal DSpace

DSpace yazılımı telif hakkı © 2002-2025 LYRASIS

  • Çerez Ayarları
  • Gizlilik Politikası
  • Son Kullanıcı Sözleşmesi
  • Geri Bildirim