Kara, Halık BarışYavuz, TevfikTunçdemir, Ali RızaTurunç, Rana2019-07-162019-07-1620121300-5170https://trdizin.gov.tr/publication/paper/detail/TVRRMU5qUTFOUT09https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12483/1783Amaç: Bu çal??man?n amac? a?artma prosedürleri boyunca dental restoratif materyallerin yüzey pürüzlülük de?i?imlerinin incelenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çal??mada a?artma ajanlar?, bir dü?ük ?s? porseleni (Vita VM9), bir ?s? ve bas?nçla ?ekillendirilen porselen (IPS Empress esthetic), ve iki tip kompozit materyali (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Clearfil Photo Posterior) üzerine uygulanm??t?r. Çal??mada kullan?lan örnekler 10 mm çap?nda, 2 mm kal?nl???nda haz?rlanm??t?r. Her grup için 10’ar örnek olmak üzere 2 ana grup olu?turulmu?tur. Örnekler deneye ba?lamadan önce 24 saat distile suda bekletilmi? ve ba?lang?ç ölçümleri al?nm??t?r. % 10 Hidrojen peroksit uygulanan örnekler 10 gün süresince günde 1 saat, %40 hidrojen peroksit uygulanan örnekler ise iki defa 20 dk a?artma ajan?na maruz b?rak?lm??t?r. Ölçümler i?lem sonras ?nda tekrarlanm??t?r. Yüzey pürüzlülü?ü ölçümleri için profilometre cihaz? (Surftest Analyzer 402, Mitutoyo Corporation, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 213-8533 Japan) kullan?lm??t?r. ?statistiksel analizler SPSS 20.0 paket program? kullan?larak Windows ortam?nda gerçekle?tirildi. Sonuçlar, paired t ve independent samples t istatistiksel analizleri yap?larak de?erlendirildi. ?statistiksel anlaml ?l?k düzeyi p<0.05 olarak al?nd?. Bulgular: Çal??man?n sonucunda; beyazlatma materyali uygulanan tüm gruplar aras?nda yüzey pürüzlülük de?eri de?i?imleri istatistiksel olarak anlaml? bulunmu?tur (p<0.05) . Ayr?ca iki a?artma prosedürü aras?nda istatistiksel olarak anlaml? bir fark bulunmam??t?r (p>0.05) . Sonuç: Restoratif materyallerin varl???nda a?artma ajanlar?n?n etkileri iyi bilinmeli ve uygulama esnas ?nda dikkatli olunmal?d?r.Background: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate surface roughness of four different restorative materials during bleaching procedures. Methods: In this study, the bleaching agents were applied on the low-fusing porcelain (VITA VM9), the heat-pressed glass ceramic (IPS Empress Esthetic), and two types of composites (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic, Clearfil Photo Posterior). A total of 20 disc-shaped specimens were fabricated (with a diameter of 10 mm and a thickness of 2 mm) from each material (n=10). Before the experiment, the samples were steeped in distilled water for 24 hours, and their initial measurements were recorded. The first set of specimens were bleached with 10% hydrogen peroxide (HP) for 1 hour daily, for 10 days. The other set of specimens were bleached with 40 % hydrogen peroxide (HP) bleaching gel for two consecutive applications for 20 minutes each. Surface roughness values were measured prior to and following the bleaching procedures by using a profilometer (Surftest Analyzer 402, Mitutoyo Corporation, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 213- 8533 Japan). Statistical analysis were done on Windows by using SPSS 20.0 programme. Paired-t test was used to analyze the surface roughness values, which were measured before and after bleaching procedure. The independent samples t-test was used to compare the effects of bleaching agents on surface roughness change in each material. Statistical significance criterion was taken as p&lt;0.05. Results: After application of both bleaching agents, surface roughness values of all restorative materials, that were tested, increased significantly (p&lt;0.05). However, there were no significant differences between two bleaching methods for restorative materials (p&gt;0.05). Conclusion: Although clinical effects depend on in-vivo conditions, the effects of office bleaching agents should be known and these agents should be applied consciously when restorative materials are present.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessEdebiyatArticle213122128