p. 329−334
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 335−346
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 347−354
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 355−362
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 363−371
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 373−381
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 383−396
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 397−407
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 409−416
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 417−423
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
0.05) regarding the amount of debris would be found between the three groups.Conclusions: The use of laser seems to be more effective than conventional root canal treatment in removing smear layer in the apical third regardless the laser probe system.]]>
p. 425−435
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 437−442
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 443−456
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 457−465
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 467−474
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 475−483
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 485−491
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 493−498
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 499−508
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
0.05). Conclusion: Surface treatment of low pressure abrasion protocol or grinding following with Monobond N universal primer gave the similar shear bond strength values of the high pressure abrasion protocol.]]>
p. 509−515
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 517−525
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 527−536
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 537−542
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 543−547
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 549−557
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 559−573
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 575−588
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
0.05), and the ProTaper Universal exhibited significantly lower resistance to cyclic fatigue compared to the other systems (p<0.05). The OneShape had a significantly smaller cross-sectional area (p<0.05), while no significance differences were found between the cross-sectional areas of ProTaper Gold, EdgeFile, and ProTaper Universal (p>0.05). No significant differences were found among the groups regarding the length of the fractured segments (p>0.05). Conclusion: EdgeFile rotary files have superior resistance to cyclic fatigue, followed in order by the ProTaper Gold, OneShape, and ProTaper Universal rotary files.]]>
p. 589−596
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
12mm and bone width > 6mm for implant placement. In this study, marginal bone height changes around premolar teeth were evaluated at the time of prostheses insertion, six months and one year later and patient satisfaction was evaluated one month after insertion. Results: Insignificant difference was detected between the three groups at the different follow-up intervals, regarding marginal bone loss. After one year follow up, bone loss was 0.17±0.04, 0.14±0.054 mm for group A, 0.09±0.05, 0.11±0.043 mm for group B and 0.15±0.034, 0.13±0.044 mm for group C on the distal and mesial sides of the second premolar respectively. On the other hand, regarding ease of cleaning, group C showed higher median value (86) compared to group A (64) and group B (51) and Kruskal Wallis test showed sig difference between group C and group B. Overall patient satisfaction and comfort during eating group A and group B showed statistically significant higher median value compared to group C and Kruskal Wallis test showed signigcant difference between group C and other groups. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it could be concluded that for unilateral partially edentulous patients, all the treatment modalities constructed in this study are reliable options regarding marginal bone loss, but for overall patient satisfaction and comfort with eating, unilateral partial dentures retained by double OT attachment with or without posterior implant are better than conventional removable partial dentures however regarding ease of cleaning conventional partial dentures showed better results.]]>
p. 597−605
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 607−614
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 615−623
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 625−633
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 635−644
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 645−655
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 657−663
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 665−670
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
0.05) difference between all materials where (Zr ≥ e.max ≥V enamic ≥ L ultimate) with their mean values respectively after 24 months (Zr; 0.25898 ±0.0035, e.max; 0.25428 ±0.0029, V enamic; 0.25413 ±0.0049, L ultimate; 0.25403 ±0.0028). Total effect of toothbrush wear simulation cycles; irrespective of material, totally toothbrush wear simulation cycles did not affect roughness significantly (p=0.8281 > 0.05) difference between all materials where (18 m ≥ baseline ≥ 6 m ≥24 m ≥ 12 m). Conclusions: Brushing of ceramic materials with conventional dentifrices non-significantly increased surface roughness, where results of surface roughness present within the clinically acceptable range, not insult the patient intraorally.]]>
p. 671−680
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
0.05). With high load (150 N), it was found that gold alloy group recorded statistically non-significant higher roughness change mean value (0.00135±0.0017 Ra) than Bruxzir group mean value (-0.00052±0.003 Ra). The difference between groups was statistically non-significant as indicated by student t-test (t=1.648, p=0.1135 > 0.05). While, enamel cusp antagonist of gold alloy group recorded statistically non-significant higher roughness loss mean value (0.00219±0.005 Ra) than enamel cusp antagonist of Bruxzir group mean value (-0.00021±0.005 Ra). The difference between groups was statistically non-significant as indicated by student t-test (t=1.15, p=0.2615> 0.05). Conclusions: 1. Monolithic zirconia do not become as rough as type IV gold when subjected to simulated mastication cycles at low (50 N) load, although they were not significantly different from each other at high (150 N) load. 2. Although being non-significant, there was a correlation between roughness change of both monolithic zirconia and gold substrates, and that of their enamel antagonists.]]>
p. 681−691
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 693−702
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 703−710
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 711−719
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
0.05) differences between (group I and group III) and (group II and group III).Conclusions : 1- The endodontically accessed hybrid ceramic crowns repaired with the novel protocol (ceramic plug) recorded high fracture resistance values. 2- The use of ceramic plug is a feasible alternative to the currently used composite repair protocol.]]>
p. 721−731
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 733−744
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 745−752
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 753−765
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 767−785
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 787−794
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 795−802
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 803−809
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 811−820
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 821−833
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)
p. 835−845
2090-2360
Vol.64/No.Issue 1 - January (Fixed Prosthodontics, Dental Materials, Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics)