Objective: To assess and compare the effects of one- and two-step self-etching primer and adhesive with conventional acid-etching and bonding system on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

Materials and Methods: The one-step self-etching primer and adhesive used was Clearfil tri-S bond, the two-step fluoride-releasing antibacterial self-etching primer and adhesive was Clearfil Protect Bond, and the fluoride-releasing conventional acid-etching and bonding system was Kurasper F Bond. Brackets were bonded to defect-free human premolars (n = 14 per group) according to each manufacturer's recommendations by using light-cured bracket adhesive Kurasper F Paste with a light-emitting diode of a light-curing unit. The specimens were stored in deionized water at 37°C for 48 hours and then tested in shear with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min until the brackets debonded. The mode of failure of the brackets was determined by a modified adhesive remnant index.

Results: Mean shear bond strength values were 9.00 MPa for Kurasper F Bond, 9.55 MPa for Clearfil Protect Bond, and 9.48 MPa for Clearfil tri-S Bond. One-way analysis of variance detected no statistically significant difference among groups (P = .98, P > .05). The predominant failure for the three groups was at the bracket-adhesive interface leaving less than 25% of the adhesive on the bracket base.

Conclusions: One-step self-etching adhesive and two-step fluoride-releasing antibacterial self-etching adhesive have sufficient mechanical properties for the bonding of orthodontic brackets.

In 1955, Buonocore introduced the acid-etching bonding technique, and the concept of bonding resins to enamel has developed applications in all fields of dentistry,1 including the bonding of orthodontic brackets.1–3 By the 1970s, bonding of orthodontic brackets had become an accepted clinical technique.4,5 Bonding brackets has some advantages, including ease of placement and removal, minimal soft tissue irritation and hyperplastic gingivitis, minimal danger of decalcification with loose bands, and being more esthetic.6 

Different materials and methods for bonding brackets are constantly being developed, but in certain cases the problem of decalcification still remains.7 A lower pH environment, increased retention sites for food particles, and increased retentive sites for Streptococcus mutans may be responsible for the occurrence of postorthodontic treatment decalcification.8–11 

Conventional adhesive systems use three different agents: (1) an enamel conditioner, (2) a primer solution, and (3) an adhesive resin to bond orthodontic brackets to enamel.12 Orthodontists generally use the conventional acid-etching bonding technique to attach brackets to the enamel surface.12 The self-etching adhesives have recently become available and combine the functions of primer and adhesive components, not requiring a separate acid-etching step and thus eliminating the need for rinsing. The self-etching systems are capable of etching the tooth surface and simultaneously preparing it for adhesion. Combining conditioning and priming into a single step reduces the bonding time and increases the cost effectiveness for the clinician and indirectly for the patient.12 However, effective bonding by self-etching systems is controversial.

A two-step fluoride-releasing antibacterial bonding agent was developed by combining the physical advantages of dental adhesive technology and an antibacterial effect.13–16 A one-step self-etching primer and adhesive system was also recently introduced.

A variety of curing lights are available to photopolymerize light-cured dental resins and adhesives. The most common is the conventional halogen light-curing unit (LCU). Several surveys have reported that halogen LCUs deliver an inadequate light intensity.17 Light-emitting diode (LED) technology may overcome some of the drawbacks of halogen; consequently, LED technology has a promising future.17 

The bond strength of one- and two-step self-etching adhesives has been reported comparable with conventional adhesive systems.18,19 In other studies, newer self-etching primers were evaluated and were found to provide acceptable shear bond values for orthodontic brackets.12,20–22 The findings are encouraging, but several in vitro studies must support these findings before they become routinely used. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to evaluate the shear bond strengths of brackets bonded with one-step self-etching primer and adhesive and two-step fluoride-releasing antibacterial self-etching primer and compare them with a fluoride-releasing conventional acid-etching and bonding system. The mode of failure of the brackets was determined by a modified adhesive remnant index (ARI).

Forty-two human premolars (21 maxillary and 21 mandibular) extracted for orthodontic purposes were collected and stored in deionized water. Teeth having hypoplastic enamel, fractures, or caries were excluded. Each tooth was mounted vertically in self-cure acrylic so that the crown was exposed. The teeth were cleaned and polished with nonfluoridated flour of pumice (Moyco Industries, Philadelphia, Pa) in a rubber prophylactic cup for 10 seconds and then rinsed with a stream of water for 10 seconds. The 42 premolars were randomly divided into three groups, including seven maxillary and seven mandibular premolars in each group. The compositions of the adhesive systems used in this study are listed in Table 1. The brackets were bonded by three different protocols according to the manufacturers' instructions.

Table 1. Composition of adhesive systems used

Table 1. Composition of adhesive systems used
Table 1. Composition of adhesive systems used

For group 1 (control group), enamel surfaces were etched with 40% phosphoric acid K etch and acid gel (Kuraray Medical, Inc, Osaka, Japan) for 20 seconds and rinsed with oil-free compressed air. Kurasper F Bond (Kuraray Medical, Inc, Osaka, Japan) was applied on acid-etched surfaces with a brush tip and was light cured for 10 seconds.

Group 2 received Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray Medical), a two-step self-etching primer and adhesive system. The Clearfil Protect Bond primer was applied on the enamel for 20 seconds and gently air dried. The Clearfil Protect Bond bonding agent was then applied, followed by a mild airflow and 10 seconds of light curing.

For group 3, Clearfil tri-S Bond (Kuraray Medical, Inc), a one-step self-etching primer and adhesive system, was applied on the enamel for 20 seconds, gently air dried for 5 seconds, and light cured for 10 seconds.

Stainless steel premolar brackets (Generous Roth Brackets of GAC International Inc, Islandia, NY) were used in all teeth, with an average bracket base surface area of 12.13 mm.2 All the brackets were bonded with the same material (Kurasper F Paste, Kuraray Medical, Inc) and light cured for 20 seconds from the mesial and distal sides of the brackets, respectively. All light curing was performed with a LED LCU (Elipar Free Light, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA).

All samples were stored in deionized water at 37°C for 48 hours. A mounting jig was used to align the facial surface of the tooth perpendicular to the bottom of the mold. Each tooth was oriented with the testing device as a guide such that its labial surface was parallel to the force during the shear strength test. A steel rod with one flattened end was attached to the crosshead of a Zwick test machine (Zwick Test Machine, Zwick GmbH & Co, Ulm, Germany). An occlusogingival load was applied to the bracket, producing a shear force at the bracket-tooth interface. A computer that was connected to the Zwick test machine recorded the results of each test. Shear bond strengths were measured at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. The force was directly recorded in newtons (N) and converted into megapascals (MPa) with the following equation: shear force (MPa) = debonding force (N)/(w/l) (mm2), where w = width of the bracket base, l = height of the bracket base, and 1 MPa = 1 N/mm2.

After debonding, the teeth and brackets were examined under a stereomicroscope (Leica MS5, Singapore) at 10× magnification for any adhesive remaining on the bracket surface and were scored by using the modified ARI.23 ARI scores range from 5 to 0 (5 = 100% of adhesive left on the bracket, 4 = 100%–75% of adhesive left on the bracket, 3 = 75%– 50% of adhesive left on the bracket, 2 = 50%–25% of adhesive left on the bracket, 1 = less than 25% of adhesive left on the bracket, 0 = no adhesive left on the bracket). Two test teeth, one from group 1 and one from group 3, were lost during the ARI scoring.

Descriptive statistics, including the mean, standard deviation, and minimum and maximum values, were calculated for each of the three test groups. One-way variance of analysis was used for statistical analysis. Significance was determined at a probability value of P < .05.

The descriptive statistics for the shear bond strength of three groups tested are presented in Table 2 and Figure 1. There were no statistical significances among the three groups (P = .98, P > .05). The brackets bonded with either the one- or two-step self-etching primer and adhesive compared with the conventional acid-etching and bond system can withstand equal amounts of force during the shear bond strength test.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics in megapascals (MPa)

Table 2. Descriptive statistics in megapascals (MPa)
Table 2. Descriptive statistics in megapascals (MPa)
Figure 1.

Mean shear bond strengths and standard deviations of the three groups evaluated

Figure 1.

Mean shear bond strengths and standard deviations of the three groups evaluated

Close modal

The frequency distribution of ARI scores for all groups is shown in Table 3 and Figure 2. The predominant failure for the three groups was at the bracket-adhesive interface leaving less than 25% of the adhesive on the bracket base, as shown by a score of1.

Table 3. The frequency distribution of adhesive remnant index scores of the three groups evaluated

Table 3. The frequency distribution of adhesive remnant index scores of the three groups evaluated
Table 3. The frequency distribution of adhesive remnant index scores of the three groups evaluated
Figure 2.

Frequencies distribution of the adhesive remnant index scores of the three groups evaluated

Figure 2.

Frequencies distribution of the adhesive remnant index scores of the three groups evaluated

Close modal

In spite of all the developments in orthodontic material and treatment mechanics, demineralization around orthodontic brackets still presents a major problem for the orthodontic patient.7 The development of fluoride-releasing glass ionomer cements and composites for bracket bonding has attracted considerable interest because they may inhibit the decalcification of the enamel around the bracket by offering fluoride delivery to the environment.24–26 Remineralization by release of fluoride is important, but the antibacterial property of fluoride is a direct strategy to eliminate the cause of dental caries.13 The surface phenomena of fluoride on teeth might not be clinically significant, but the physiologic effect of fluoride in tooth enamel must be considered.27 Fluoride deposits in hydroxyapatite to form fluorapatite, but fluorapatite might affect the bond strength.28 Some reports have shown that the topical application of fluoride can interfere with the etching effect of phosphoric acid on enamel surfaces, resulting in reduced bond strength of dental resins.29,30 Other studies, however, have demonstrated that the topical application of fluoride to enamel surfaces did not negatively affect the etch pattern on enamel or the bond strength of composite resin.31–33 

The two-step self-etching adhesive system used in this study (Clearfil Protect Bond) contains 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide (MDPB), an antibacterial monomer found in antibacterial adhesives. Imazato et al14,15 have been conducting investigations on the utilization of MDPB since 1995 and reported incooperation of MDPB into the self-etching primer and adhesive resin. An unpolymerized MDPB shows a strong bacterial activity residual in the cavity and can be inactivated when MDPB containing DBS (dentin bonding system) is applied.13,16 The antibacterial effect of Clearfil Protect Bond has also been validated in in vivo animal models.34 Unlike its fluoride-release effect, the antibacterial activity of MDPB may not extend around the bracket, thus producing a potential limitation.20 

The self-etching primer and adhesive agents have substantially lower bond strength compared with conventional acid-etching and bonding systems. Comparison with other studies in which self-etching primer and adhesive systems were used for orthodontic purposes can be made to some extent, though differences between the enamel surface preparation techniques and the testing methodologies used must be considered with caution. Bishara et al12 reported that self-etching primer and adhesive systems provide significantly lower but clinically acceptable shear bond strength when compared with a conventional etching and primer technique before bonding brackets with Transbond XT adhesive paste (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Cal-Neto et al21 tested Adper Prompt L-Pop in comparison with a conventional acid-etching and bonding system (Transbond XT light-cured adhesive and primer, 3M ESPE). In both groups, no significant difference was observed in bond strengths.

It has been suggested that bond strengths between 8 and 9 MPa are sufficient to withstand normal orthodontic forces.35 The maximum bond strength should be less than the breaking strength of the enamel, which is about 14 MPa.36,37 In this study the bond strength values were 9.00 MPa for Kurasper F Bond, 9.55 MPa for Clearfil Protect Bond, and 9.48 MPa for Clearfil tri-S Bond. The results of one- and two-step self-etching primers compared with the conventional acid-etching and bond system are quite satisfactory for orthodontic purposes, and decalcification by phosphoric acid may be avoided by using self-etching primer and adhesives.20 

Clean tooth surfaces have a higher surface energy that is amenable to bonding,27,38 but fluoride on the surface can lower the surface energy of the adherent, decreasing the ability of the adhesive to spread. In this study all teeth were cleaned with nonfluoridated flour of pumice before bonding the brackets.

In orthodontics, the bonding procedure is performed on unground intact enamel. In restorative dentistry it is clinically advisable to use the simplified self-etching no-rinse adhesive systems only on enamel that has been ground.27,39 However, when the self-etching adhesives were bonded to unground intact enamel, the bond strength values were significantly lower.39 In this study, enamel was etched with phosphoric acid in group 1, but in the other groups the brackets were bonded to intact enamel with two different self-etching adhesives. In this study there was no significant difference between the bond strength of two different self-etching adhesives compared with the conventional acid-etching and bonding system.

Many studies have demonstrated that when self-etching primers are preferred, the degree of penetration by the adhesive to the etched enamel is less compared with the use of the conventional acid-etching technique. The more deeply the enamel surface is penetrated by the adhesive, the greater the penetration of the adhesive and the greater the risk of damage to the enamel.12,20 

The sites of failure within the bracket-adhesive-enamel complex can occur within the bracket, between the bracket and the adhesive, within the adhesive, and between the tooth surface and the adhesive.40 A modified ARI has been developed to quantify the amount of adhesive that remains on the bracket after a bracket base debonds.23 There are two basic opinions on the remnant adhesive on the teeth surface after bracket debonding. One opinion recommends failure at the bracket-adhesive interface, leaving the adhesive resin mainly on the enamel surface.6,12 The second opinion supports failure at the interface of the enamel and adhesive resin, maintaining that there will be less adhesive left to remove from the enamel surface after debonding.41 According to the first opinion, when a heavy-filled resin is used to bond the orthodontic attachments to the enamel, the microporosites created by etching are filled with the resin and provide mechanical retention. The findings by Bennett et al42 also support that opinion.42 In their study, the dominant ARI score was 1, which means that 25% or less adhesive was left on the bracket. Our findings of ARI scores mainly supported this opinion. Eminkahyagil et al20 also tested self-etching primer and adhesives by using ARI scores, and their dominant score was also1.

  • One-step self-etching adhesive and two-step antibacterial self-etching adhesive have sufficient mechanical properties for the bonding of orthodontic brackets.

  • The antibacterial effect and simplified application procedures of these systems make them a good choice for orthodontic bonding.

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Kuraray Medical, Inc. and GAC International, Inc. for supplying the adhesives and orthodontic brackets for this study. The authors are also grateful to Mr Erdem Karabulut for his support with the statistical analysis.

1
Bishara
,
S. E.
,
J. F.
Laffoon
,
L.
Vonwald
, and
J. J.
Warren
.
The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of different orthodontic adhesives.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2002
.
121
:
521
525
.
2
Newman
,
G. V.
,
W. H.
Snyder
, and
C. E.
Wilson
Jr.
.
Acrylic adhesives for bonding attachments to tooth surfaces.
Angle Orthod
1968
.
38
:
12
18
.
3
Retief
,
D. H.
,
C. J.
Dreyer
, and
G.
Gavron
.
The direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth by means of an epoxy resin adhesive.
Am J Orthod
1970
.
58
:
21
40
.
4
Thanos
,
C. E.
,
T.
Munholland
, and
A. A.
Caputo
.
Adhesion of mesh-base direct-bonding brackets.
Am J Orthod
1979
.
75
:
421
430
.
5
Gorelick
,
L.
Bonding metal brackets with a self-polymerizing sealant-composite: a 12-month assessment.
Am J Orthod
1977
.
71
:
542
553
.
6
Proffit
,
W.
Contemporary Orthodontics.
St Louis, Mo: CV Mosby; 1986:287
.
7
Polat
,
O.
,
T.
Uysal
, and
A. I.
Karaman
.
Effects of chlorhexidine varnish on shear bond strength in indirect bonding.
Angle Orthod
2005
.
75
:
1036
1040
.
8
Balenseifen
,
J. W.
and
J. V.
Madonia
.
Study of dental plaque in orthodontic patients.
J Dent Res
1970
.
49
:
320
324
.
9
Scheie
,
A. A.
,
P.
Arneberg
, and
O.
Krogstad
.
Effects of orthodontic treatment on prevalance of Streptococcus mutans in plaque and saliva.
Scand J Dent Res
1984
.
92
:
211
217
.
10
Vierrou
,
A. M.
,
M. A.
Manwell
,
R. L.
Zamec
,
R. C.
Schdeva
, and
N.
Tinanoff
.
Control of streptococcus mutans with topical fluorides in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.
J Am Dent Assoc
1986
.
113
:
644
646
.
11
Gorelick
,
L.
,
A. M.
Geiger
, and
A. J.
Gwinnett
.
Incidence of white spot formation after bonding and banding.
Am J Orthod
1982
.
81
:
93
98
.
12
Bishara
,
S. E.
,
C.
Oonsombat
,
R.
Ajlouni
, and
J. F.
Laffoon
.
Comparison of the shear bond strength of 2 self-etch primer/adhesive systems.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2004
.
125
:
348
350
.
13
Imazato
,
S.
Antibacterial properties of resin composites and dentin bonding systems.
Dent Mater
2003
.
19
:
449
457
.
14
Imazato
,
S.
,
Y.
Kinomoto
,
H.
Tarumi
,
M.
Torii
,
R. R.
Russell
, and
J. F.
McCabe
.
Incorporation of antibacterial monomer MDPB into dentin primer.
J Dent Res
1997
.
76
:
768
772
.
15
Imazato
,
S.
,
Y.
Kinomoto
,
H.
Tarumi
,
S.
Ebisu
, and
F. R.
Tay
.
Antibacterial activity and bonding characteristics of an adhesive resin containing antibacterial monomer MDPB.
Dent Mater
2003
.
19
:
313
319
.
16
Imazato
,
S.
,
N.
Ebi
,
H.
Tarumi
,
R. R.
Russell
,
T.
Kaneko
, and
S.
Ebisu
.
Bactericidal activity and cytotoxicity of antibacterial monomer MDPB.
Biomaterials
1999
.
20
:
899
903
.
17
Pilo
,
R.
,
D.
Oelgiesser
, and
H. S.
Cardash
.
A survey of output intensity and potential for depth of cure among light-curing units in clinical use.
J Dent
1999
.
27
:
235
241
.
18
Arnold
,
R. W.
,
E. C.
Combe
, and
J. H.
Warford
Jr.
.
Bonding of stainless steel brackets to enamel with a new self-etching primer.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2002
.
122
:
274
276
.
19
Cehreli
,
Z. C.
,
D.
Kecik
, and
I.
Kocadereli
.
Effect of self-etching primer and adhesive formulations on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2005
.
127
:
573
579
.
20
Eminkahyagil
,
N.
,
Y.
Korkmaz
,
S.
Gokalp
, and
M.
Baseren
.
Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with newly developed antibacterial self-etch adhesive.
Angle Orthod
2005
.
75
:
843
848
.
21
Cal-Neto
,
J. P.
,
F.
Carvalho
,
R. C.
Almeida
, and
J. A.
Miguel
.
Evaluation of a new self-etching primer on bracket bond strength in vitro.
Angle Orthod
2006
.
76
:
466
469
.
22
Arhun
,
N.
,
A.
Arman
,
C.
Sesen
,
E.
Karabulut
,
Y.
Korkmaz
, and
S.
Gokalp
.
Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with 3 self-etch adhesives.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2006
.
129
:
547
550
.
23
Shammaa
,
I.
,
P.
Ngan
,
H.
Kim
,
E.
Kao
,
M.
Gladwin
,
E.
Gunel
, and
C.
Brown
.
Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study.
Angle Orthod
1999
.
69
:
463
469
.
24
Chan
,
D. C.
,
E. J.
Swift
Jr
, and
S. E.
Bishara
.
In vitro evaluation of a fluoride-releasing orthodontic resin.
J Dent Res
1990
.
69
:
1576
1579
.
25
Ogaard
,
B.
,
F.
Rezk-Lega
,
J.
Ruben
, and
J.
Arends
.
Cariostatic effect and fluoride release from a visible light-curing adhesive for bonding of orthodontic brackets.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1992
.
101
:
303
307
.
26
Mitchell
,
L.
An investigation into the effect of a fluoride releasing adhesive on the prevalence of enamel surface changes associated with directly bonded orthodontic attachments.
Br J Orthod
1992
.
19
:
207
214
.
27
Kimura
,
T.
,
W. J.
Dunn
, and
L. J.
Taloumis
.
Effect of fluoride varnish on the in vitro bond strength of orthodontic brackets using a self-etching primer system.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2004
.
125
:
351
356
.
28
Aasenden
,
R.
,
P. F.
DePaola
, and
F.
Brudevold
.
Effects of daily rinsing and ingestion of fluoride solutions upon dental caries and enamel fluoride.
Arch Oral Biol
1972
.
17
:
1705
1714
.
29
Garcia-Godoy
,
F.
,
G. W.
Hubbard
, and
A. T.
Storey
.
Effect of a fluoridated etching gel on enamel morphology and shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1991
.
100
:
163
170
.
30
Meng
,
C. L.
,
C. H.
Li
, and
W. N.
Wang
.
Bond strength with APF applied after acid etching.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1998
.
114
:
510
513
.
31
Bishara
,
S. E.
,
D.
Chan
, and
E. A.
Abadir
.
The effect on the bonding strength of orthodontic brackets of fluoride application after etching.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1989
.
95
:
259
260
.
32
Wang
,
W. N.
and
D. H.
Sheen
.
The effect of pretreatment with fluoride on the tensile strength of orthodontic bonding.
Angle Orthod
1991
.
61
:
31
34
.
33
Meng
,
C. L.
,
W. N.
Wang
, and
I. S.
Yeh
.
Fluoridated etching on orthodontic bonding.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1997
.
112
:
259
262
.
34
Kaneko
,
T.
,
S.
Imazato
,
N.
Ebi
,
A.
Kuramato
,
Y.
Noiri
, and
S.
Ebuisu
.
In vivo antibacterial effect of dentin primer incorporating MDPB.
J Dent Res
2001
.
80
:(
special issue
).
659
.
35
Sunna
,
S.
and
W. P.
Rock
.
Clinical performance of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems: a randomized clinical trial.
Br J Orthod
1998
.
25
:
283
287
.
36
Retief
,
D. H.
Failure at the dentin adhesive-etched enamel interface.
J Oral Rehabil
1974
.
1
:
265
284
.
37
Bowen
,
R. L.
and
M. S.
Rodrigues
.
Tensile bond strength and modulus of elasticity of tooth structure and several restorative materials.
J Am Dent Assoc
1962
.
64
:
378
387
.
38
Craig
,
R. G.
Applied surface phenomena.
In: Craig RG, Powers JM, eds. Restorative Dental Materials. 11th ed. St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 2002:19–37
.
39
Kanemura
,
N.
,
H.
Sano
, and
J.
Tagami
.
Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces.
J Dent
1999
.
27
:
523
530
.
40
Littlewood
,
S. J.
,
L.
Mitchell
,
D. C.
Greenwood
,
N. L.
Bubb
, and
D. J.
Wood
.
Investigation of a hydrophilic primer for orthodontic bonding: an in vitro study.
J Orthod
2000
.
27
:
181
186
.
41
Bishara
,
S. E.
,
L.
Vonwald
,
J. F.
Laffoon
, and
J. R.
Jakobsen
.
Effect of altering the type of enamel conditioner on the shear bond strength of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer adhesive.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2000
.
118
:
288
294
.
42
Bennett
,
C. G.
,
C.
Shen
, and
J. M.
Waldron
.
The effects of debonding on the enamel surface.
J Clin Orthod
1984
.
18
:
330
334
.

Author notes

Corresponding author: Nuray Attar DDS, PhD, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, 06100, Sıhhiye, Ankara, Turkey ([email protected])