Biomechanical evaluation between orthodontic attachment and three different materials after various surface treatments: <i>A three</i>-<i>dimensional optical profilometry analysis</i>

dc.authoridARMAN OZCIRPICI, AYCA/0000-0002-9250-3689
dc.authoridSar, Cagla/0000-0003-4966-9779
dc.authorscopusid57210787473
dc.authorscopusid7003879862
dc.authorscopusid7003326611
dc.authorscopusid35084310900
dc.contributor.authorKurt, Irem
dc.contributor.authorCehreli, Zafer Cavit
dc.contributor.authorOzcirpici, Ayca Arman
dc.contributor.authorSar, Cagla
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-25T11:41:25Z
dc.date.available2024-05-25T11:41:25Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.departmentOkan Universityen_US
dc.department-temp[Cehreli, Zafer Cavit] Hacettepe Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Pediat Dent, Ankara, Turkey; [Ozcirpici, Ayca Arman] Baskent Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Orthodont, Ankara, Turkey; [Sar, Cagla] Istanbul Okan Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Orthodont, Istanbul, Turkeyen_US
dc.descriptionARMAN OZCIRPICI, AYCA/0000-0002-9250-3689; Sar, Cagla/0000-0003-4966-9779en_US
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To determine the best bonding method of orthodontic attachment among monolithic zirconia, feldspathic porcelain, hybrid porcelain, and the impact of surface-conditioning methods using a three-dimensional optical profilometer after debonding. Materials and Methods: 56 feldspathic porcelain, 56 monolithic zirconia, and 56 hybrid porcelain samples were divided into four surface treatment subgroups: (1) hydrofluoric (HF) acid etch + silane, (2) Al2O3 sandblasting + silane, (3) silicoating (SiO2), and (4) diamond bur + silane. The specimens were tested to evaluate shear bond strength (SBS). Residual composite was removed after debonding. Three-dimensional white-light interferometry was used to obtain quantitative measurements on surface roughness. Results: The highest SBS value was found for the HF acid-etched feldspathic porcelain group. The average surface roughness values were significantly higher in all material groups in which diamond bur was applied, while roughening with Cojet provided average surface roughness values closer to the original material surface. Conclusions: Variations in structures of the materials and roughening techniques affected the SBS and surface roughness findings.en_US
dc.identifier.citation10
dc.identifier.doi10.2319/072918-547.1
dc.identifier.endpage750en_US
dc.identifier.issn0003-3219
dc.identifier.issn1945-7103
dc.identifier.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.pmid30855180
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85071469179
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage742en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.2319/072918-547.1
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/1522
dc.identifier.volume89en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000482085000009
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherE H Angle Education Research Foundation, incen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectThree-dimensional optical profilometryen_US
dc.subjectSurface roughnessen_US
dc.subjectShear bond strengthen_US
dc.titleBiomechanical evaluation between orthodontic attachment and three different materials after various surface treatments: <i>A three</i>-<i>dimensional optical profilometry analysis</i>en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files