Tevfik Yavuz

Publications (2)3.76 Total impact

• Article: Effects of different surface treatments on shear bond strength in two different ceramic systems.

  Tevfik Yavuz, Erhan Dilber, Haluk Baris Kara, Ali Riza Tuncdemir, A Nilgun Ozturk
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different surface treatments (sandblasting, acid etching, and laser irradiation) on the shear bond strength of lithium disilicate-based core (IPS Empress 2) and feldspathic ceramics (VITA VM 9). One hundred ceramic discs were divided into two groups of 50 discs each for two ceramic systems: IPS Empress 2 (group I) and VITA VM 9 (group II). Each of the two groups was further divided into five surface treatment groups (ten each) as follows: group SB, sandblasting with alumina particles (50 μm); group HF, 5 % hydrofluoric acid etching; group L, Er:YAG laser irradiation (distance, 1 mm; 500 mJ; 20 Hz; 10 W; manually, noncontact R14 handpiece); group SB-L, sandblasting + Er:YAG laser; and group HF-L, 5 % hydrofluoric acid + Er:YAG laser. Luting cement (Panavia 2.0) was bonded to the ceramic specimens using Teflon tubes. After 24 h of water storage, a shear bond strength test was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analyzed with a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference tests (α = 0.05). The two-way ANOVA indicated that the shear bond strength was significantly affected by the surface treatment methods (p < 0.05), but there was no significant interaction between the ceramic systems. Group SB-L had the highest mean values for each ceramic system. Sandblasting, followed by Er:YAG laser irradiation, enhanced the bond strength, indicating its potential use as an alternative method. The atomic force microscopic evaluation revealed that group SB had the most distinct sharp peaks among the groups.
  Lasers in Medical Science 09/2012; · 2.00 Impact Factor
• Article: Comparison of the effects of surface treatments on roughness of two ceramic systems.

  Erhan Dilber, Tevfik Yavuz, Haluk Baris Kara, A Nilgun Ozturk
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different surface treatments on the surface roughness of lithium disilicate-based core (IPS Empress 2, shade 210, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and feldspathic ceramics (Vita VM9, VITA Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG, Bad Säckingen, Germany). Background data: Er:YAG laser irradiation is expected to be an alternative surface treatment, thus enhances surface roughness of procelains and produces morphological changes. Fifty lithium disilicate-based core ceramic discs and 50 feldspathic ceramic discs were prepared (diameter, 10 mm; thickness, 1 mm) according to the manufacturers' instructions. All-ceramic discs were polished to standardize, and surface roughness of the discs was evaluated before treatment and serving as controls. Both of two ceramic groups were divided into five groups (n=10), and the following treatments were applied: (1) sandblasting with aluminum oxide (Al(2)O(3); Group SB); (2) Al(2)O(3)+Er:YAG laser (Group SB-L); (3) Er:YAG laser irradiation (distance, 1 mm; 500 mJ; 20 Hz; 10W; manually, contact handpiece [R 14]) (Group L); (4) 5% hydrofluoric acid etching (Group HF); and (5) Er:YAG laser +5% hydrofluoric acid (Group HF-L). Surface roughness was evaluated by profilometry, and specimens were then examined with atomic force microscopy. Data were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed rank, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α=0.05). The Wilcoxon signed rank test results indicated that surface roughness after sandblasting was significantly different from the surface roughness after laser irradiation and acid etching (p<0.001). Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis test results indicated that groups SB and SB-L had significantly higher mean roughness values (p<0.05) than those in the other groups. Groups SB and SB-L had rougher surfaces than the groups subjected to the other surface treatment methods. There was no significant difference in surface roughness between the HF acid etching, Er:YAG laser irradiation, and HF and Er:YAG (p<0 .05).
  Photomedicine and laser surgery 04/2012; 30(6):308-14. · 1.76 Impact Factor