THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT FLUORIDE-RELEASING RESTORATIVE MATERIALS ON THE NANOHARDNESS OF ADJACENT ENAMEL AT DIFFERENT DISTANCES

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKeskin, Gul
dc.contributor.authorGundongar, Zubeyde Ucar
dc.contributor.authorGaziantep, Selma Ozarslan
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-18T20:15:04Z
dc.date.available2024-09-18T20:15:04Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.departmentHatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractFluoride-releasing restorative materials (FRRMs) are crucial for preventing secondary caries formation in teeth. One way of detecting the anticariogenic activity of these materials is to evaluate the hardness of the adjacent enamel. Objective: The study was aimed at comparing changes to the enamel surface adjacent to the FRRMs, following the cariogenic challenge, and at evaluating the anti-caries effectiveness demonstrated by the materials at different distances. Material and methods: Thirty-five enamel samples were obtained from bovine incisors. The samples were embedded in acrylic resin and then standard cylindrical cavities were prepared in the center of the samples and restored with five different materials: high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (Group GIC; Fuji IX extra), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Group RMGIC; Fuji II LC), glass hybrid reinforced high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (Group EQ; Equia Forte), giomer (Group BII; Beautifil II LS), and bioactive restorative material (Group ACT; ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative). Nanoindentation testing was performed twice (baseline and after the artificial caries challenge) at five different points. Differences in nanohardness values were recorded and the data were statistically analyzed. Results: The RMGIC and EQ groups showed significantly higher nanohardness values compared to the others at a distance of 100 and 200 mu m (p<0.05). However, at 300 mu m, the RMGIC and GIC groups showed significantly higher nanohardness values than the others (p <0.05). At 400 and 500 mu m, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, it was found that high viscosity and resin-modified glass ionomer cement were more effective in increasing enamel hardness, up to a distance of 300 mu m in the adjacent enamel than giomer and bioactive reactive materials,en_US
dc.identifier.endpage122en_US
dc.identifier.issn0015-4725
dc.identifier.issn2253-4083
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage111en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12483/9432
dc.identifier.volume54en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000693366500003en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherInt Soc Fluoride Researchen_US
dc.relation.ispartofFluorideen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectDental enamelen_US
dc.subjectFluorideen_US
dc.subjectNanohardnessen_US
dc.subjectRestorative materialsen_US
dc.subjectSecondary cariesen_US
dc.titleTHE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT FLUORIDE-RELEASING RESTORATIVE MATERIALS ON THE NANOHARDNESS OF ADJACENT ENAMEL AT DIFFERENT DISTANCESen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu