Person:
ÖZYILMAZ, ÖZGÜN YUSUF

Profile Picture
Status
Organizational Units
OrgUnit Logo
Organizational Unit
Job Title
First Name
ÖZGÜN YUSUF
Last Name
ÖZYILMAZ
Name
Email Address
Birth Date

Filters

20192
Reset filters

Settings

Rights: info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Effect of cleansers on denture base resins- structural properties
    (2019-02-01) Ozyilmaz, Ozgun Yusuf; Akin, Ceyda; ÖZYILMAZ, ÖZGÜN YUSUF
    Introduction: We assessed the effect of different available denture cleansers on the roughness and hardness of polyetherketoneketone, thermoinjection-molded polyamide, and polymethylmethacrylate. Materials and Methods: A total of 150 disc-shaped specimens were fabricated (10 mm × 2 mm) from these three denture base resins, and divided into five subgroups (n = 10) according to immersion procedures. One of these groups subjected to distilled water served as control, whereas other groups were subjected to daily cleansing with four denture cleansers (Corega, Protefix, Curaprox, and Perlodent) for 8 h a day for 140 days. The surface roughness and hardness values of specimens were recorded by measuring twice at baseline, and again after application of chemical solutions. Topography alterations after treatments were assessed with scanning electron microscopy. The data were subjected to statistical analysis and comparison among groups was done using Kruskal Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks tests. P-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: The surface roughness of polyetherketoneketone, polymethylmethacrylate, and polyamide dentures was increased significantly by chemical solutions of denture cleansers. While the hardness value of polyetherketoneketone was not affected significantly after immersion in denture cleansers, those of polymethylmethacrylate and polyamide decreased significantly. Compared with Curaprox, the effervescent tablets significantly altered the surface hardness and roughness of polyamide. Conclusion: Denture cleansers can considerably alter the surface roughness and hardness of denture base resins and should be used carefully depending on the material.
  • Thumbnail Image
    PublicationOpen Access
    Effect of mucosa thicknesses on stress distribution of implant-supported overdentures under unilateral loading: Photoelastic analysis
    (2019-10-01T00:00:00Z) ÖZYILMAZ, ÖZGÜN YUSUF; AYKENT, FİLİZ; Ozel, Gulsum Sayin; ÖZYILMAZ, ÖZGÜN YUSUF
    Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different heights of attachment and mucosa thicknesses on the stress distribution of two implant-retained mandibular overdenture designs under loading using the photoelastic stress analysis method. Materials and methods: Six photoelastic models of an edentulous mandibula were fabricated with two solitary implants that were placed in the canine regions. The attachment systems studied were ball and locator stud attachments. Both the ball and locator groups included three models that had different residual ridge heights so as to provide different mucosa thicknesses (1 mm-1 mm, 1 mm-2 mm, 1 mm-4 mm). A static vertical force of 135 N was applied unilaterally (each on the right then the left side) to the central fossa of the first molars. Models were positioned in the field of a circular polariscope to observe the distribution of isochromatic fringes around the implants and the interimplant areas under loading. The photoelastic stress fringes were monitored and recorded photographically. Results: The ball attachment groups showed higher stress values than did the locator groups under loading. Both attachment systems produced the lowest stress values in stimulated 1 mm-1 mm mucosa thickness models. The models with 1 mm-2 mm mucosa thicknesses showed higher stress values than did other models for both attachment systems. The highest stress value observed around both attachment systems was the moderate level in all test models. Conclusion: In different height mucosa thicknesses, locator attachment models distributed the load to the other side of the implant and its surrounding tissue, whereas the ball attachment did not. Regardless of mucosal thickness and attachment type, the implant on the loading side was subjected to the highest stress concentration.