Erratum- How will surface treatments affect the translucency of porcelain laminate veneers?

Sedanur Turgut,Bora Bagis,Elif Aydogan Ayaz,Fatih Mehmet Korkmaz,KıvançUtku Ulusoy,Yildirim Hakan Bagis 대한치과보철학회 2014 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.6 No.2

The article 'How will surface treatments affect the translucency of porcelain laminate veneers?' authored by Sedanur Turgut, Bora Bagis, Elif Aydogan Ayaz, Fatih Mehmet Korkmaz, KıvançUtku Ulusoy, and Yildirim Hakan Bagis published in February issue [Vol 6, No 1] of The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics (2014), has an erratum.

How will surface treatments affect the translucency of porcelain laminate veneers?

Turgut, Sedanur,Bagis, Bora,Ayaz, Elif Aydogan,Korkmaz, Fatih Mehmet,Ulusoy, Kivanc Utku,Bagis, Yildirim Hakan The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics 2014 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.6 No.1

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether surface treatments affect the translucency of laminate veneers with different shades and thicknesses. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 224 disc-shaped ceramic veneers were prepared from A1, A3, HT (High Translucent) and HO (High Opaque) shades of IPS e.max Press (Ivoclar Vivadent) with 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses. The ceramics were divided into four groups for surface treatments. Group C: no surface treatments; Group HF: etched with hydrofluoric acid; Group SB: sandblasted with 50-${\mu}m$ $Al_2O_3$; and Group L; irradiated with an Er;YAG laser. A translucent shade of resin cement (Rely X Veneer, 3M ESPE) was chosen for cementation. The color values of the veneers were measured with a colorimeter and translucency parameter (TP) values were calculated. A three-way ANOVA with interactions for TP values was performed and Bonferroni tests were used when appropriate (${\alpha}=0.05$). RESULTS. There were significant interactions between the surface treatments, ceramic shades and thicknesses (P=.001). For the 0.5-mm-thick specimens there were significant differences after the SB and L treatments. There was no significant difference between the HF and C treatments for any shades or thicknesses (P>.05). For the 1-mm-thick ceramics, there was only a significant difference between the L and C treatments for the HT shade ceramics (P=.01). There were also significant differences between the SB and C treatments except not for the HO shades (P=.768). CONCLUSION. The SB and L treatments caused laminate veneers to become more opaque; however, HF treatment did not affect the TP values. When the laminate veneers were thinner, both the shade of the ceramic and the SB and laser treatments had a greater effect on the TP values.

How will surface treatments affect the translucency of porcelain laminate veneers?

Sedanur Turgut,Bora Bagis,Elif Aydogan Ayaz,Fatih Mehmet Korkmaz,KıvançUtku Ulusoy,Yildirim Hakan Bagis 대한치과보철학회 2014 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.6 No.1

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether surface treatments affect the translucency of laminate veneers with different shades and thicknesses. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 224 disc-shaped ceramic veneers were prepared from A1, A3, HT (High Translucent) and HO (High Opaque) shades of IPS e.max Press (Ivoclar Vivadent) with 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses. The ceramics were divided into four groups for surface treatments. Group C: no surface treatments; Group HF: etched with hydrofluoric acid; Group SB: sandblasted with 50-μm Al2O3 and Group L; irradiated with an Er;YAG laser. A translucent shade of resin cement (Rely X Veneer, 3M ESPE) was chosen for cementation. The color values of the veneers were measured with a colorimeter and translucency parameter (TP) values were calculated. A three-way ANOVA with interactions for TP values was performed and Bonferroni tests were used when appropriate (α=0.05). RESULTS. There were significant interactions between the surface treatments, ceramic shades and thicknesses (P=.001). For the 0.5-mm-thick specimens there were significant differences after the SB and L treatments. There was no significant difference between the HF and C treatments for any shades or thicknesses (P>.05). For the 1-mm-thick ceramics, there was only a significant difference between the L and C treatments for the HT shade ceramics (P=.01). There were also significant differences between the SB and C treatments except not for the HO shades (P=.768). CONCLUSION. The SB and L treatments caused laminate veneers to become more opaque; however, HF treatment did not affect the TP values. When the laminate veneers were thinner, both the shade of the ceramic and the SB and laser treatments had a greater effect on the TP values.

How will surface treatments affect the translucency of porcelain laminate veneers?

Sedanur Turgut,Bora Bagis,Elif Aydogan Ayaz,Fatih Mehmet Korkmaz,KıvançUtku Ulusoy,Yildirim Hakan Bagis 대한치과보철학회 2014 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.6 No.2

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether surface treatments affect the translucency of laminate veneers with different shades and thicknesses. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 224 disc-shaped ceramic veneers were prepared from A1, A3, HT (High Translucent) and HO (High Opaque) shades of IPS e.max Press (Ivoclar Vivadent) with 0.5 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses. The ceramics were divided into four groups for surface treatments. Group C: no surface treatments; Group HF: etched with hydrofluoric acid; Group SB: sandblasted with 50-µm Al2O3; and Group L; irradiated with an Er;YAG laser. A translucent shade of resin cement (Rely X Veneer, 3M ESPE) was chosen for cementation. The color values of the veneers were measured with a colorimeter and translucency parameter (TP) values were calculated. A three-way ANOVA with interactions for TP values was performed and Bonferroni tests were used when appropriate (α=0.05). RESULTS There were significant interactions between the surface treatments, ceramic shades and thicknesses (P=.001). For the 0.5-mm-thick specimens there were significant differences after the SB and L treatments. There was no significant difference between the HF and C treatments for any shades or thicknesses (P>.05). For the 1-mm-thick ceramics, there was only a significant difference between the L and C treatments for the HT shade ceramics (P=.01). There were also significant differences between the SB and C treatments except not for the HO shades (P=.768). CONCLUSION The SB and L treatments caused laminate veneers to become more opaque; however, HF treatment did not affect the TP values. When the laminate veneers were thinner, both the shade of the ceramic and the SB and laser treatments had a greater effect on the TP values.

Can Cochlear Nerve Size Assessment With Magnetic Resonance Enhance the Understanding of Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss?

Arslan Hande,Özdemir Meltem,Kavak Rasime Pelin,Keseroğlu Kemal,Mutlu Murad,Korkmaz Mehmet Hakan 대한청각학회 2024 Journal of Audiology & Otology Vol.28 No.1

Background and Objectives: Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSHL) is a rapid loss of hearing, exceeding 30 dB in at least 3 consecutive frequencies within 3 days, without any identifiable cause despite thorough investigations. Currently, the etiology and pathogenesis of ISSHL have not been fully elucidated. This study aimed to assess the size of the cochlear nerve in patients with ISSHL and explore its relationship with pretreatment audiograms and treatment response.Subjects and Methods: A total of 125 patients (59 [47.2%] women; mean age 47.7±13.8 years [minimum-maximum: 21-76]) and 60 healthy participants (27 [45%] women; mean age 45.7±16.8 years [minimum-maximum: 20-76]) as a control group were included in this study. The size of the cochlear nerve was assessed on the affected side, compared to the control group, as well as on the unaffected side. Pretreatment and posttreatment audiological values were also analyzed.Results: The cross-sectional area (CSA), vertical diameter (VD), and horizontal diameter (HD) of the CN were found to be smaller on the affected side of ISSHL patients compared to the control group (p<0.01; p=0.04; p=0.02, respectively). In the study group (affected side of ISSHL patients), there were no significant differences in VD, HD, and CSA values between pretreatment audiogram types (p=0.23; p=0.53; p=0.39, respectively), and initial hearing levels (p=0.16; p=0.22; p=0.23, respectively). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in VD, HD, and CSA values between the recovery groups according to Furuhashi criteria (p=0.18; p=0.37; p=0.27, respectively).Conclusions: The size of the CN may be a risk factor for ISSHL, but it does not affect the type of audiogram curves and was not prognostic in terms of treatment response.