Yazar "Doğu Kaya, Bengü" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 3 / 3
  • [ X ]
    Öğe
    Clinical assessment of scanning deviations of four intraoral scanner systems following the cut-out and rescan procedures with dental dam isolation
    (Elsevier Inc., 2026) Korkut, Bora; Senol, Ayse Aslı; Saygılı, Cevdet Can; Doğu Kaya, Bengü; Gresnigt, Marco M.M.; Özcan, Mutlu
    Statement of problem: The effect of errors in the cut-out and rescan procedure with dental dam isolation in restorative dentistry might be crucial for the clinical success of indirect restorations, but investigations are lacking. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the scanning deviations of 4 intraoral scanners (IOSs) after the cut-out and rescan procedure with dental dam isolation and to compare 2 different computer software programs in the assessment of the deviations. Material and methods: Twenty initial scans (prescans) were collected from 20 participants using 4 dental IOSs (TRIOS 3; 3Shape A/S, Cerec Primescan; Dentsply Sirona, iTero Element 5D; Align, iTero Lumina; Align). The 3-dimensional data were obtained from the right side of the mandible between the canine and the second molar area and recorded in standard tessellation language (STL) format. Then, the second premolar was cut on the screen of each IOS using the cutting tool in its software program, within 1 mm of the adjacent teeth. The dental dam was applied, and the same quadrant was rescanned by each IOS for each participant to allow the software program to overlap the 2 scans and fill in the cut-out area. The superimposition scan was recorded in STL format as the rescan data. The trueness of each scanner was assessed by overlapping the prescan and rescan data with Geomagic ControlX (3D Systems) and Oracheck (Dentsply Sirona) software programs to assess the root mean square (RMS) errors and the mean distance (MD) deviations, respectively. The deviations were assessed individually for the first premolar, second premolar, and first molar. Two-way ANOVA and Robust ANOVA with the median method were used for the statistical analyses (?<.05). Results: The overall RMS errors ranged between 60 and 90 µm, and the overall MD deviations ranged between 80 and 200 µm. All scanners presented beyond 60 µm of RMS errors with significant differences between them for the overall comparisons (P=.001). The iTero Lumina presented the lowest RMS error (60 ±20), followed by iTero Element 5D (70 ±20), Primescan (70 ±30), and TRIOS 3 (80 ±30) (P=.001). Regardless of the scanner type, the second premolar had significantly the highest RMS error (90 ±30) (P<.001). Regarding the overall data, a very low agreement was observed between MD deviations and RMS errors (Cronbach alpha=.047). Conclusions: The cut-out and rescan procedure with dental dam isolation may cause RMS errors ranging from 60 to 90 µm, which were below the clinically acceptable limits. The deviation occurred mainly in the cut-out area, while the adjacent teeth were less affected. The level of deviation may vary depending on the selected IOS. The Oracheck may not be a good replacement for the Geomagic ControlX regarding the assessment of the deviations between the 2 scans. © 2025 Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Evaluation of Accuracy of Intraoral Scanner with Different Inlay Preparation Geometry
    (Marmara University, 2025) Doğu Kaya, Bengü; Özden, Yunus Emre; Özkurt Kayahan, Zeynep; Yılmaz Atalı, Pınar
    Objective: This in vitro study aimed to assess the accuracy of an intraoral scanner in inlay preparations with different geometry. Methods: The upper second premolar tooth-shaped models were designed and prepared using a 3D printer (Phrozen Mega 8K, Phrozen, Taiwan). Three distinct inlay preparation configurations were utilized, including buccal and palatal wall divergence at 6 degrees, 8 degrees, and 10 degrees. The reference 3D images were acquired through scanning of each model with varying inlay preparation using an extraoral scanner (E1, 3Shape, Denmark). Thirty 3D images (samples) were obtained from each of the three models (n = 10) using an intraoral scanner (Trios 3, 3Shape, Denmark). The samples and reference images were saved in Standard Tessellation Language (STL) and imported into software (Geomagic Control X 2022, 3D Systems Inc., USA). Discrepancies between the reference image and the samples were recorded as root mean square (RMS) and standard deviation (SD). Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests, and interquartile range (IQR) were used for statistical analysis with THE significance level p<.05. Results: The RMS was highest at 6 degrees, both of which were statistically significant from the other degrees (p<.001). Highest SD values were obtained in 10 degrees samples (p<.001). To evaluate the infer precision with IQR, RMS values were smallest at 10 degrees and SD values smallest at 6 degrees. Conclusion: The divergence angle of the preparation in the inlay cavities can potentially affect the accuracy of the intraoral scanner.
  • [ X ]
    Öğe
    Evaluation of Degree of Conversion, Flexural Strength, and Microhardness of a Novel Flowable Resin Composite
    (Selcuk University, 2025) Doğu Kaya, Bengü; Öztürk, Selinsu; Kuzu, Nazlı Zeynep; Senol, Ayse Aslı; Kahramano?lu, Erkut; Yılmaz Atalı, Pınar; Tarcin, Bilge
    Aim: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the degree of conversion, and to compare the flexural strength, and microhardness of two flowable resin composites with different filler ratio. Materials & Methods: Two flowable composite resins were used in this study, ZENIFLOW (65% filler by volume) and Dynamic flow (60% filler by volume) (President, Germany). Disc-shaped specimens were prepared from each material using silicone molds (8 x 2). All specimens were polymerized with an LED curing unit (Valo Cordless, Ultradent, USA) at 1000 mW/cm2 for 20 s. Polishing procedures were performed with 4-stage finishing discs (BISCO, USA). Vickers microhardness values (VHN) (n=5) and hardness ratio (HR) of these samples were determined from the top/bottom surfaces with a microhardness tester after being stored in distilled water at 37ºC for 15 days. Degree of conversion (DC) was evaluated using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) (n=5). Rectangular specimens (25 x 2 x 2) were prepared and subjected to three-point bending test (n=10) to determine flexural strength (FS) and flexural modulus (FM). After the flexural strength evaluation, the fractured surfaces were examined by stereomicroscope (Leica MZ7.5, Germany) and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) (Zeiss EVO MA10, Germany). Independent sample t-test was used to compare the values between groups. The significance level was determined as p<0.05. Results: There was no significant difference between the two resin composites with different filler ratios in terms of degree of conversion, microhardness, hardness ratio, flexural strength, and flexural modulus. Conclusion: A 5% increase in the volume of filler content did not alter the degree of conversion and the tested mechanical properties of the resin composite. © 2025, Selcuk University. All rights reserved.