You are here

Home » Content

DÖRT FARKLI TİP RESTORATİF MATERYALİN SUT MOLARLARDAKİMİKROSIZINTISININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: BÎR İN VIVO ÇALIŞMA

THE EVALUATION OF MICROLEAKAGE OF FOUR DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS ON THE PRIMARY MOLARS: AN IN VIVO STUDY

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 1998

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Recently, although several materials and methods are developed for removing the problem of microleakage, this problem has not been solved yet. The ieakproofing is a preferred characteristic. This property of the materials has been studying in vitro, but it is true that in vivo and in vitro conditions are differ from each other. In this study, class 1 cavities were prepared in first and second primary molars, and recently introduced, four different materials that can be used in decidious teeth were applied without base. Post-operative compliances of patients were recorded and after three weeks, teeth were extracted and evaluated from the leakage point of view.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Günümüzde mikrosızmtı problemini ortadan kaldırmak için birçok materyal ve yöntemler eeliştirilme&ine karşın, henüz bu sorun çözülememiştir, Restoratif materyallerin sızdı rmazlığı istenilen bir özelliktir- Materyallerin bu özelliği genellikle in vıtro olarak çalışılmakladır. Ancak in vivo ve in vitro şartların farklı olduğu bir gerçektir. Çalışmamızda; sut T. ve D. azı dişlerine sınıf I kaviteler açılarak, son yıllarda piyasaya Ktiriilmüş süt dişlerinde uygulanabilen dört farklı materyal kaidesiz olarak uygulanmıştır. Hastaların post-operatif şikayetleri kaydedilmiş ve dişler üç hafta sonra çekilerek sızıntı yönünden değerlendirilmiştir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-dort-farkli-tip-restoratif-materyalin-sut-molarlardakimikrosizintisinin-degerlendirilmesi-bir-vivo-calisma.pdf
  • 1
23-28
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Berthaccini SM. Abate PF, Macchi RL. Marginal Leakage With Hibrid Ionomers And Compomers [Abs.36], J Dent Res 1996; 75(5): 1063 .
2. Bransstrom M, Astıran A. The Hydrodynamics Of The Denünc; Its Possible Relation To Dental Pain. Lit !>ent J 1972;(22): 219-227.
3. Buonocora MG, Matsui A, Gwjnnet AJ. Penetration Of Resin Materials Into Enamel Surface With Reference To Bonding. Arch Oral Biol 1968; (13): 61-70.
4. Buonocora MG, Sheykhoteslam Z, Glena R. Evaluation Of An Enamel Adhesive To Prevent Marginal Leakage: An In Vitro Study. J Dent Child 1973; (40): 119-124..
5. Council On Dental Materials And Devices: Status Report On The Glass-Ionomer Cements. J ADA, 1979; 99: 221.
6. Crim GA, Garcia-Godoy F. Microleakage: The Effect Of Storage And Cycling Duration. J.Praslhet.Dent. 1987; (57): 574-576.
7. Crim GA, Mattingly JL, Evaluation Of Two Methods For Asscnsing Marginal Leakage. J Prosthet Dent 1981; (45): 160-163,
S
Fusayama T. Total Etch Technique And Cavity
Isolation. J Esthet DcnL 1992; 4: 105-109¬9. Gordon M, Plasschaert AJM, Stark MM.
Microleakage Of Several Tooth-Colored Restorative
Materials In Cervivat Cavities. A Comparative Study In
Vitro. Dent.Mater, 1986; 2: 228-231.
111. Gwjnnet AJ, The Ultrastructure Of iPrismlessî Enamel Of Permanent Human Teeth. Arch Oral Biol 1967; 12: 381-388.
11. Inokoshi S, Iwaku M, Fusayama T. Pulpal Response To A New Adhesive Restorative Resin. J Dent Res 1982; 61; 1014-1019.
12. Jenkins CBG. A Comparison Of Bond Strenght Of Glass Ionomer Cements And Acid Etch Resin Systems lAbs.fJDentRcs 1976; 55: DI34 ,
13. Kidd RAM. Cavity Sealing Ability Of Composite And Glass Ionomer Cement Restorations. Br DentJ 1978;144: 139-142.
14. Maldonado A, Swartz M, l'hillps RW. An In Vitro Study Of Certain Properties Of A Glass Ionomer
27
Atatürk Üniv.Diş Hek.Fak.Derg.
Glt 8. Sayı:1, Sayfa:23-28,1998
YILMAZ, KIRZIOĞLU
Cement. JADA. 1978; 96: 785-791.
15. Mannocci F, Vichi A, Ferrari M. In Vivo Investigation Of Marginal leakage Of Dental Materials |Abs.[ll..TDcntRes 1996; 75(5): 1218.
16. Mc Curdy CE, Swartz ML, Phillips RW. A Coparisoti Of In Vivo And In Vitro MikroleabagE Of Dental Restorations. JADA.1974; 88: 592 602.
17. Miranda Mr Dias K., Rarcçlciro M, Crippa G. An In Vitro Evaluation Of The Mieroleakage In Class V Glass Ionomer Restorations |Abs/76]. J Dent Res 1996; 75 (5); 1087 .
18. Mount GJ, Longevity Of Glass-lonoincr Cements. J Prosthet Dent L986;55: 682-685.
19. Murray GA, Yaies JL. A Comparison Of The Bond Strenghts Of Composite Resin And Glass Ionomer Cements. J Pcdodont 1984; S; 1732-177.
20. Norman RD, Swartz ML, Phillips RW, Studies On The Solubility Of Certain Dental Materials. J.Dent.Res.l957;36: 977.
21. Norman RD, Swartz ML, Phillips RW. Direct pH Determinations Of Setting Cements. 1 . A Test Method And The Effect Of Storage l ime And Media . .1 Dent Res 1966; 45: 136.
22. Pinkado MR, Dougles WH. The Comparison Between Two Different Dentin Bonding Resin Systems. Quint Int 1988;19: 905-907.
23. Prati C, MonLanari G. Comparative Mieroleakage Staudy Between The Sanwich And Conventional Three^Increnient Tecniqucs. Quin Int 1989; 20: 587-594.
24. Qvist V. The Effect Of Mastication On Marginal Adaptation 01"Composite Restorations In Vivo. J Dent Res 1983; 62: 904 906.
25. Seyrnen F, Cam-ionomer Simanlann pH
Değişimlerini
n İn Vitro Olarak Çeşitli Simanlar ve Kompozit Reçinelerle Karşılaştırılması. Pedod Klin /Araş 1996; 4(1): (Basımda).
26. Snuggs HM, Con CP, Powell CS, White KC. Pulpal Healing And Dentinal Bridge Formation In An Acidic Environment. Quint Int 1993; 24: 501-510.
27. Tsai YH, Swartz ML, Phillips RW ct al. A Comparative Study: Bond Strenght And Mieroleakage With Dentin Bonding Systems. Oper Dent 1990; (5): 53-60.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com