Person: DİKER, BURCU
8 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
Publication Metadata only Accuracy of six intraoral scanners for scanning complete-arch and 4-unit fixed partial dentures: An in vitro study.(2021-02-05T00:00:00Z) Diker, BURCU; Tak, Önjen; DİKER, BURCUPublication Metadata only Influence of Peri-Implant Bone Defect Type on Insertion Torque and Resonance Frequency Analysis: An In Vitro Study(2022-09-01) DİKER N.; DİKER B.; DİKER, NURETTİN; DİKER, BURCUPublication Metadata only Effect of different composite materials used as core build-ups on the trueness of intraoral scanning.(2021-02-19T00:00:00Z) Elter, Bahar; Diker, BURCU; Tak, Önjen; DİKER, BURCUPublication Metadata only The influence of zirconia coping designs on maximum principal stress distribution in all-ceramic premolar crowns: A finite element analysis.(2019-10-01T00:00:00Z) Diker, BURCU; Erkut, Selim; DİKER, BURCUPublication Metadata only Comparison of Reliability of 3 Resonance Frequency Devices: An In Vitro(2022-02-01T00:00:00Z) DİKER, BURCU; DİKER, NURETTİN; Tak, Onjen; DİKER, BURCU; DİKER, NURETTİNThe purpose of the present study was to investigate the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of 3 resonance frequency analysis (RFA) devices and to compare the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values according to implant macro design and diameter in 2 different bone densities. A total of 64 implants (Neoss ProActive; Neoss; Harrogate, UK) of varying diameters (3.5 and 4.0 mm) and implant macro design (tapered and straight) were placed in 2 artificial bone blocks (the density of type 2 and 3). The implant primary stability was measured using Osstell IDx (Osstell; Go center dot teborg, Sweden), Osstell Beacon and Penguin RFA (Integration Diagnostics; Go center dot teborg, Sweden). The ISQ value of each implant was measured by 2 observers and recorded 5 times in 2 directions. The intraobserver and interobserver reliability of RFA devices were evaluated. In addition to that, mean ISQ values were calculated for each RFA device to evaluate the effect of implant diameter, implant macro design, and bone density on ISQ values. ISQ values were significantly higher for implants placed within the type 2 bone than for the type 3 bone. The 4.0-mm diameter implants presented higher ISQ values than 3.5-mm diameter implants. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values for intraobserver reliability were above 0.85 for each observer and the ICC values for interobserver reliability were 0.94, 0.93, and 0.98 for Osstell IDx, Osstell Beacon, and Penguin RFA, respectively. Although there was excellent interobserver reliability with 3 RFA devices, the intraobserver reliability of Osstell Beacon and Penguin RFA were slightly better than Osstell IDx. Bone density and implant diameter were parameters affecting the primary stability of implants.Publication Metadata only Comparing the accuracy of six intraoral scanners on prepared teeth and effect of scanning sequence(2020-10-01T00:00:00Z) Diker, BURCU; Tak, Onjen; DİKER, BURCUPURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of six recently introduced intraoral scanners (IOSs) for single crown preparations isolated from the complete arch, and to determine the effect of scanning sequence on accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A complete arch with right and left canine preparations for single crowns was used as a study model. The reference dataset was obtained by scanning the complete arch using a highly accurate industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM GmbH). Six different IOSs (Trios, iTero, Planmeca Emerald, Cerec Omnicam, Primescan, and Virtuo Vivo) were used to scan the model ten times each. The scans performed with each IOS were divided into two groups, based on whether the scanning sequence started from the right or left quadrant (n=5). The accuracy of digital impression was evaluated using three-dimensional analyzing software (Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems). The Kruskal Wallis and Mann- Whitney U statistical tests for trueness analysis and the One-way ANOVA test for precision analysis were performed (alpha=.05). RESULTS. The trueness and precision values were the lowest with the Primescan (25 and 10 mu m), followed by Trios (40.5 and 11 mu m), Omnicam (41.5 mu m and 18 mu m), Virtuo Vivo (52 and 37 mu m), Fiero (70 and 12 mu m) and Emerald (73.5 and 60 mu m). Regarding trueness, iTero showed more deviation when scanning started from the right (P=.009). CONCLUSION. The accuracy of digital impressions varied depending on the IOS and scanning sequence used. Pritnescan had the highest accuracy, while Emerald showed the most deviation in accuracy for single crown preparations.Publication Metadata only Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence(2021-01-01T00:00:00Z) Diker, BURCU; Tak, Onjen; DİKER, BURCUPurpose: To compare the accuracy of six intraoral scanners in two different partially edentulous maxillary models and to evaluate the effect of scanning sequence on accuracy. Materials and Methods: Maxillary Kennedy Class I and Class IV situations were used as reference models. The reference datasets were obtained by scanning the models using a highly accurate industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM). The following six intraoral scanners were evaluated: Trios 3 (3Shape), iTero Element 2 (Align Technology), Emerald (Planmeca), CEREC Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona), CEREC Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), and Virtuo Vivo (Dental Wings). A total of 120 scans from both models were obtained using the six intraoral scanners and divided into two groups based on scanning sequence. Accuracy was evaluated by deviation analysis using 3D image processing software (Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems). Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed (P <= .05) for statistical analysis. Results: There were significant differences in the accuracy of digital impressions among intraoral scanners and scanning sequences. The trueness of the Trios scanner and the precision of the Trios, Primescan, and iTero scanners were significantly higher than for the other scanners. The Emerald had the lowest accuracy among the six intraoral scanners tested. Accuracy was affected by scanning sequence when using the Virtuo Vivo, Emerald, Primescan, and iTero. Conclusion: In Kennedy Class I and Class IV partially edentulous cases, it is useful to consider that the intraoral scanner used may affect the accuracy of the digital impression.Publication Metadata only Farklı Gövde Dizaynlarına Sahip İmplantların Yerleştirme Tork Değerlerinin Karşılaştırılması(2020-02-29T00:00:00Z) Diker, Nurettin; Diker, Burcu; Tak, Önjen; DİKER, NURETTİN; DİKER, BURCU