Araştırma Çıktıları | WoS | Scopus | TR-Dizin | PubMed

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14719/1741

Browse

Filters

2021 - 20222

Settings

Start date: 2020End date: 2026Subject: search.filters.subject.HumanSubject: search.filters.subject.Computer Aided Design/computer Aided ManufacturingAuthor: search.filters.author.Yüzbaşıoğlu, EmirHas files: No

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    PublicationMetadata only
    Artificial intelligence technologies in dentistry
    (Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi, 2021) Albayrak, Berkman; Özdemir, Gökhan; Us, Yeşim Olçer; Yüzbaşıoğlu, Emir; Albayrak, Berkman, Department of Prosthodontics, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, Istanbul, Turkey; Özdemir, Gökhan, Department of Prosthodontics, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, Istanbul, Turkey; Us, Yeşim Olçer, Department of Prosthodontics, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, Istanbul, Turkey; Yüzbaşıoğlu, Emir, Department of Prosthodontics, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, Istanbul, Turkey, Department of Dentistry, BAU International University, Batumi, Georgia
    One of the most important actors in the digitization process of our age has been the applications of artificial intelligence (AI). While the weak and strong AI sub-concepts and the different AI models within them are being utilized in many fields such as education, industry and medicine today, the interest of the dentistry field, which has started its integration into the digital world with CAD/CAM technology, in AI is increasing day by day. In different branches of dentistry, AI provides services to clinicians and researchers in many fields such as disease diagnosis, evaluation of the occurrence or recurrence of diseases such as oral cancer, and prediction of success in surgical and prosthetic treatments. In this article, studies in which AI models such as machine learning, convolutional neural networks have found research and usage areas on the basis of different branches of dentistry are reviewed. © 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    PublicationMetadata only
    CAD/CAM single-retainer monolithic zirconia ceramic resin-bonded fixed partial dentures bonded with two different resin cements: Up to 40 months clinical results of a randomized-controlled pilot study
    (John Wiley and Sons Inc, 2022) Bilir, Halenur; Yüzbaşıoğlu, Emir; Sayar, Gülşilay; Kılınç, Delal Dara; Gozukara Bag, Harika Gozde; Özcan, Mutlu; Bilir, Halenur, Department of Prosthodontics, İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Istanbul, Turkey; Yüzbaşıoğlu, Emir, Department of Prosthodontics, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, Istanbul, Turkey; Sayar, Gülşilay, Department of Orthodontics, Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, Istanbul, Turkey; Kılınç, Delal Dara, Private Practice, Istanbul, Turkey; Gozukara Bag, Harika Gozde, Department of Biostatistics, Inönü Üniversitesi Tip Fakültesi, Malatya, Turkey; Özcan, Mutlu, Dental Materials Unit, Universität Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
    Purpose: This pilot study was part of a larger study planned for the future which aimed to compare the clinical success of two different resin cements used in the cementation of CAD/CAM single-retainer monolithic zirconia ceramic resin-bonded fixed dentures (RBFPDs). Methods: Twenty-four RBFPDs were fabricated with monolithic zirconia (Katana™ Zirconia HT, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc, Tokyo, Japan). Panavia F2.0 (PF2.0, n = 12) and Panavia V5 (PV5, n = 12) were used for cementation. The survival period was defined as the time when the restoration was placed in the mouth and lasted until an irreparable damage occurred. The repairable failures were identified as relative and irreparable failures were identified as absolute failure. The survival rate of the RBFPDs was determined by the Kaplan–Meier estimator. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: The mean observation times of the PF2.0 group and the PV5 group were 40.45 ± 6.15 months and 40.18 ± 6.41 months, respectively. Four failures occurred in the PF2.0 group. No failure was observed in the PV5 group. The curves of survival rate (PF2.0 = 80%, PV5 = 100%) showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.031), although success rate (PF2.0 = 66.7%, PV5 = 100%) showed statistically significant difference (p = 0.317). Conclusion: Up to 40 months mean follow-up period, performance of RBFPDs bonded with PV5 was better than with PF2.0. Clinical Significance: For clinicians, it is a matter of hesitation to apply single-retainer RBFPDs. This study contains results of 40 months (minimum 32, maximum 50.47 months) clinical follow-ups of single-retainer RBFPDs. These results will enlighten clinicians about the clinical success of the resin cement type for single-retainer monolithic zirconia ceramic RBFPDs. © 2022 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.