
   @article{article_646987, title={EFFECT OF THERMOCYCLING ON MECHANICAL AND SURFACE PROPERTIES OF THREE POSTERIOR RESTORATIVE MATERIALS}, journal={Selcuk Dental Journal}, volume={8}, pages={352–358}, year={2021}, DOI={10.15311/selcukdentj.646987}, author={Akgül, Sinem and Hazar, Ahmet and Yıkılgan, İhsan and Özcan, Suat and Üçtaşlı, Mine Betül and Bala, Oya}, keywords={Glass ionomer,scanning electron microscopy,surface properties}, abstract={&amp;lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;"&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;Background: &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;
To evaluate the mechanical and surface properties of two glass ionomer
restorative systems (EQUIA Fil, Ionostar Molar) and a resin composite (Charisma
Classic ) after thermocycling. &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;"&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;Methods: &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;
Twenty disk-shaped samples were prepared from each material in teflon molds
according to manufacturer’s instructions. After the samples were stored in
distilled water at 37 &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;C for 24 h, microhardness and surface
roughness measurements were performed from each group and repeated after 5000
and 10000 thermocycling. Scanning electron microscopy examinations were also
performed. The data were analyzed by using Wilcoxon signed rank and Bonferroni
corrected multiple comparison tests. &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;"&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;Results: &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;EQUIA
did not exhibit significant differences in its micohardness values after
thermocycling ( &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;p &amp;gt;  0.0056). In contrast, Ionostar Molar and
Charisma Classic exhibited statistically significant decreases in baseline
microhardness after 5000 and 10000 thermocycling processes (each p &amp;lt;
0.0056). However, there were no significant differences between 5000 and 10000
thermocycling groups for Charisma Classic (p = 0.007). &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;
Ionostar Molar exhibited no statistically significant differences between its
surface roughness values before and after thermocycling groups ( &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;p &amp;gt; 0.0017 &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;). Similarly, there were no significant
differences between baseline and 5000 thermocycling groups for EQUIA and
Charisma Classic ( &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;p &amp;gt; 0.0017). However, a
statistically significant increase was observed after 10000 thermocycles for
both of these two materials &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;( &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;p &amp;lt; 0.001 and &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;p = 0.002, respectively). &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;"&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;Conclusion: &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;"&amp;gt;The
EQUIA and Ionostar Molar exhibited mechanical features similar to those of a
resin composite, and thus, represent promising materials for permanent
restorations. &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%;"&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span lang="tr" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:200%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;" xml:lang="tr"&amp;gt;Keywords: &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;span lang="tr" style="font-size:12pt;line-height:200%;font-family:’Times New Roman’, serif;" xml:lang="tr"&amp;gt;Glass
ionomer, scanning electron microscopy, &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;surface
properties  &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/span&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt; &amp;lt;b&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;}, number={2}, publisher={Selcuk University}