1 Ocak 2021 Dergi makalesi Açık Erişim

Eraslan, R.; Colpak, E. D.; Kilic, K.; Polat, Z. Akin

MARC21 XML

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
  <leader>00000nam##2200000uu#4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Colpak, E. D.</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Antalya, Turkey</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Kilic, K.</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">Erciyes Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Kayseri, Turkey</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Polat, Z. Akin</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">Cumhuriyet Univ, Dept Med Parasitol, Sch Med, Sivas, Turkey</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1="C" ind2="4">
    <subfield code="p">NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE</subfield>
    <subfield code="v">24</subfield>
    <subfield code="n">9</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">1373-1379</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">user-tubitak-destekli-proje-yayinlari</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Creative Commons Attribution</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses/cc-by</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">10.4103/njcp.njcp_666_20</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Biomechanical Properties and Biocompatibility of Implant-Supported Full Arch Fixed Prosthesis Substructural Materials</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Eraslan, R.</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">Erciyes Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Kayseri, Turkey</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1="C" ind2="O">
    <subfield code="o">oai:aperta.ulakbim.gov.tr:230786</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">user-tubitak-destekli-proje-yayinlari</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
    <subfield code="2">opendefinition.org</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">cc-by</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2021-01-01</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">https://aperta.ulakbim.gov.trrecord/230786/files/bib-647d0736-c3d9-4071-b7ad-8729a74ee079.txt</subfield>
    <subfield code="z">md5:e9358857f2268ab222afdef20f412538</subfield>
    <subfield code="s">230</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="542" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="l">open</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20221007075738.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="001">230786</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">publication</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">article</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the fracture resistance, biocompatibility, hardness, and transverse strength of non-precious metal alloy (chromium-cobalt; Cr-Co), titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) when employed as substructure materials according to the implant supported full arch fixed prosthesis treatment concept. Materials and Methods: In total, 150 Cr-Co, Ti, Zr, PMMA, and PEEK samples (n = 30 per material) measuring 25 x 2 x 2 mm in size were produced. Of the samples, 50 (n = 10 for each material, all having dimensions of 6 x 3 mm) were subjected to biocompatibility tests. The Vickers hardness test and three-point bending test were performed; fracture resistance measurements were taken and the biocompatibility of the samples was evaluated by the XTT assay. Results: Vickers hardness was highest for Zr (p &amp;lt; 0.05). PEEK and PMMA had the lowest (and similar) fracture resistance values (p &amp;lt; 0.05). Cell proliferation on the surfaces of the materials was similar between PEEK and Zr (p &amp;gt; 0.05), which were the most biocompatible materials. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the most favorable materials in terms of biocompatibility were found as PEEK and Zr. When biomechanical properties are evaluated, the most durable materials can be specified as Cr-Co and Zr. Also, further studies are needed to improve material stability.</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>