Burç Gençel
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Burç Gençel has a total of 7 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Emine Kıtın
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul Health and Technology University, Sütlüce Mah., İmrahor Cad., 82, Beyoğlu, Istanbul 34445, Turkey
1 shared publication - Ergun Bozdag
Department of Mechanical Engineering, İstanbul Technical University, Ayazağa Campus Reşitpaşa Mahallesi Sarıyer, Istanbul 34469, Turkey
1 shared publication - Fatih Yamak
Department of Mechanical Engineering, İstanbul Technical University, Ayazağa Campus Reşitpaşa Mahallesi Sarıyer, Istanbul 34469, Turkey
1 shared publication Max Bosshart
Private Practice, Dental Technology Center Zurich
1 shared publication- Oktay Yazıcıoğlu
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Beyazıt Square (Beyazıt Meydanı) Fatih, Istanbul 34126, Turkey
1 shared publication - Oyun Erdene Batgerel
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Biruni University, Istanbul 34010, Turkey
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
Interfacial Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Resin Composites on Dentin vs. Composite Substrates: Influence of Dual-Cure and Self-Adhesive Resin Cements
This in vitro study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) of four CAD/CAM (Computer aided design/Computer aided manufacturing) polymer-based indirect composites bonded to dentin and microhybrid composite substrates using two resin cements. Gradia Plus (GP), Ceramage (Ce), Tescera ATL (TA), and Lava Ultimate (LA) were fabricated into cylindrical specimens (3 × 3 mm). Dentin substrates were obtained from extracted molars, while composite substrates were prepared from Filtek Z250 (4 mm × 2 mm). Bonding was performed using either a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U200; RU200) or a dual-cure adhesive resin cement (RelyX Ultimate; RU), resulting in 16 experimental groups (n = 12 per group). SBS was measured using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min), and failure modes were assessed under stereomicroscopy. Bond strength was significantly higher on composite substrates than on dentin (p < 0.001), primarily due to favorable polymer–polymer compatibility and matrix interdiffusion, which improved stress accommodation at the adhesive interface. TA and Ce showed superior adhesion when combined with RU, while LA exhibited the lowest values, particularly on dentin bonded with RU200. Overall, the dual-cure adhesive system provided stronger bonding than the self-adhesive system (p < 0.05). These findings highlight the influence of substrate type, composite architecture, and cement chemistry on interfacial performance in indirect polymer-based restorations.
Open AccessInterfacial Bond Strength of CAD/CAM Resin Composites on Dentin vs. Composite Substrates: Influence of Dual-Cure and Self-Adhesive Resin Cements
This in vitro study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) of four CAD/CAM (Computer aided design/Computer aided manufacturing) polymer-based indirect composites bonded to dentin and microhybrid composite substrates using two resin cements. Gradia Plus (GP), Ceramage (Ce), Tescera ATL (TA), and Lava Ultimate (LA) were fabricated into cylindrical specimens (3 × 3 mm). Dentin substrates were obtained from extracted molars, while composite substrates were prepared from Filtek Z250 (4 mm × 2 mm). Bonding was performed using either a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U200; RU200) or a dual-cure adhesive resin cement (RelyX Ultimate; RU), resulting in 16 experimental groups (n = 12 per group). SBS was measured using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min), and failure modes were assessed under stereomicroscopy. Bond strength was significantly higher on composite substrates than on dentin (p < 0.001), primarily due to favorable polymer–polymer compatibility and matrix interdiffusion, which improved stress accommodation at the adhesive interface. TA and Ce showed superior adhesion when combined with RU, while LA exhibited the lowest values, particularly on dentin bonded with RU200. Overall, the dual-cure adhesive system provided stronger bonding than the self-adhesive system (p < 0.05). These findings highlight the influence of substrate type, composite architecture, and cement chemistry on interfacial performance in indirect polymer-based restorations.
- 1 January 2016
- Published by Springer Nature
- p. 73-82
Impressions for Removable Partial Dentures
- 1 January 2016
- Published by Springer Nature
- p. 149-162
Surveying and Laboratory Procedures