Abstract:

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of the application of chlorhexide on the repair binding resistance of nanophiles and bulk-fill composites Tools and Methods: 160 pieces of covers on the acrylic blocks created for use in our study were prepared. Half of the boxes were filled with nanophilic compounds (Filtek Ultimate), while half were filled with bulk-fill compounds (Tetric EvoCeram Bulkfill). After all the samples were kept in distilled water for 1 week at 37oC, the samples of each restorative material were divided into 2 main trial groups. Examples in Group 1 were exposed to chlorhexidine for 60 seconds. Examples in Group 2 have not been applied (control). The proper adhesives of restorative materials were applied as interim repair agents in both groups. Half of the samples from each group were exposed to the pre-test thermal cycle (5000 cycles, 5-55 oC, stay time 30 seconds, transfer time 15 seconds), the other half was assessed by the repair binding resistance scanning test by taking the test immediately. The experimental groups used a two-way ANOVA test to analyze the scattering connection resistance. The level of importance (p<0.05) has been taken. The broken types formed after the connection resistance test were examined with an optical loop and divided into groups. The broken types were also displayed with a scaned electron microscope. The findings: the application of chlorhexidine and thermal cycle has not significantly affected the repair binding resistance (p>0.05). Bulk-fill compounds showed lower repair binding resistance. The highest bond value is obtained in the control group after 24 hours with nanophyllic compounds.Low value is found in bulk-fill compounds made in the thermal cycle after the application of chlorhexidine. The mixed type of fractures has been found. Results: This in vitro study has not affected the repair bonding resistance of the bulk-fill and nanofil-based compounds with chlorhexidine and the thermal cycle applied in addition.

Keywords: