Aim: To evaluate the bond strengths of pulp capping materials (Dycal, ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, TheraCal LC, Calcimol LC, and ApaCal ART) and different adhesive systems (Gluma 2 Bond, Clearfil SE Protect, Gluma Self Etch, Clearfil S 3 Bond Plus, Gluma Bond Universal, Clearfil S 3 Bond Universal). Materials and Methods: Two hundred fifty-two acrylic blocks were prepared in which cylindrical cavities of 4 × 2 mm 3 were formed. Pulp capping materials were placed in the cavities. Different adhesive systems were applied to each pulp capping material group. After applying the composite resin, the shear bond strength (SBS) values of the specimens were determined in the Instron test device. Fracture types were evaluated using a stereomicroscope and a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed by Shapiro–Wilk’s and Kruskal–Wallis H test. Results: There is a statistically significant difference between pulp capping materials in terms of SBS values ( P < .05). Dycal’s SBS was found significantly lower than other materials, and the highest bond strength was observed in Calcimol LC material. Although there is no statistically significant difference ( P > .05) between the adhesive agent groups in terms of SBS, Gluma 2 Bond showed the highest bond strength value. Conclusion: In traditional pulp capping materials such as Dycal, MTA, and Biodentine, using a two-step self-etch adhesive system can result in higher bond strength values. In resin-based TheraCal LC,, ApaCal ART, and Calcimol LC materials, it may be recommended to use a two-step etch and rinse adhesive system.

Amalgam ve kompozit rezinler, posterior bölgede en çok tercih edilen restoratif materyallerdir. Son yıllarda adeziv ve kompozit materyallerdeki gelişmeler sayesinde, posterior bölge çürük tedavisinde sıklıkla kompozit rezin restorasyonlar kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı merkezlerde, farklı materyallerle (amalgam ve kompozit) yapılan direkt posterior restorasyonların klinik performansını, restorasyona ve hastaya ait faktörler ile kesitsel bir çalışmayla karşılaştırarak değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmada Dicle Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı'na başvuran 77 hastada, 365 restorasyon iki tecrübeli araştırıcı tarafından Modifiye Rgye kriterlerine göre değerlendirilmiştir. Kriterlerin başarısız olma durumuna etkisi olan restorasyona ve hastaya bağlı değişkenleri tespit edebilmek için Ki-kare testi uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Hastaya ve restorasyona bağlı faktörlerin yapılan restorasyonların klinik performanslarına etkisi incelendiğinde, sonuçlara göre restorasyonun tipi, restorasyon derinliği, yapıldığı merkez, hastanın sigara içme alışkanlığı, parafonksiyonel alışkanlıkları ve oral hijyen alışkanlıklarının farklılığı restorasyon performansını anlamlı düzeyde etkilemiştir (p<0,05). Amalgam dolgu materyali kullanılarak yapılan restorasyonların başarısızlık oranı %69 ve kompozit dolgu maddesi kullanılarak yapılan restorasyonların başarısızlık oranı %50,8 olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Direk posterior restorasyonların ağız içi sağ kalım süresi, uygulayan diş hekimi tecrübesi ve bilgi birikimi, uygulama aşamalarındaki titizlik, restoratif materyali tanıma ve vakaya uygun seçim kriterleri bilgisi ile hastaya bağlı çeşitli faktörlerden de etkilenmektedir. Restorasyonların başarısının doğrudan bu etkenlere bağlı olduğunu görülmektedir.

BACKGROUND Cavity disinfectants are frequently used for the elimination of bacteria that remain in the cavity, which are shown as the cause of secondary caries. However, its effect on microleakage from the tooth-restoration interface is still under investigation. The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the effects of the use of three different cavity disinfectants on microleakage in Class V composite restorations. METHODS For this study, 28 permanent third molar teeth without caries and restoration were used. Class V cavities of 4 mm x 3 mm x 3 mm were prepared on the buccal surfaces of each tooth. The teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups, with 7 teeth in each group. No cavity disinfectant was applied to the teeth in group 1. Tubulicid Red Label (Dental Therapeutics AB, Sweden) cavity disinfectant was applied to the 2nd group teeth, Cavity Cleanser (BISCO Inc., USA) cavity disinfectant to the 3rd group teeth, and Oxygenated Water (Dermosept, Turkey) cavity disinfectant to the 4th group teeth. Composite resin with universal adhesive and nanohybrid filler was applied to all samples in the groups in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturers, and finishing and polishing processes were performed. Then, the thermal cycle (NOVA, Konya, Turkey) procedure was applied. After the restorations were covered with nail polish, they were kept in a 5 % basic fuchsin solution. The teeth were cut vertically in the buccolingual direction and examined with a stereomicroscope at x 40 magnification. The results were statistically evaluated with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS When the microleakage scores were compared between the control group and the groups treated with Tubulicid Red Label (p:0.204), Cavity Cleanser (p:0.204) and Oxygenated Water (P: 0.788), it was determined that there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). CONCLUSİONS It was determined that different cavity disinfectants applied in Class V cavities did not have a negative effect on microleakage and the closest results to the control group were seen in the group where cavity cleanser disinfectant containing 2 % chlorhexidine digluconate was applied. KEY WORDS Cavity Disinfectants, Class V Cavity, Microleakage.