Kuhns book The Structure of scientific revolution is based on Hegels philosophy of history and uses, as Hegel did, the dialectic as the motor of history. What Kuhn terms paradigm shifts, in Hegelian terms is sublation, the standard translation of aufheben.
To give an an example of this method, which is one that Kuhn uses - the relationship between Newtonian Physics and that of Einsteins.
In Popperian terms one says that Einsteinian physics falsifies Newtonian Physics; and this falsification is understood to be that of observable experiment; that is there is an experiment, the standard one here being the Michaelson-Morley experiment, that falsifies a prediction of the Newtonian theory.
In conventional physical discourse, typically, the notion of limit or convergence is used; and this just follows by simple reflection; Newtonian physics cannot be falsified in all its aspects, it retains a region of validity, and a newer theory must find that as a limit in that region of validity.
In Kuhns theory using Hegelian terms, the thesis is Newtonian physics, the anti-thesis is the constancy of light & its sublated into a synthesis that is Einsteinian Physics.
One notes here that the synthesis retains concepts from both theses - for example the fundamental notions of mass and energy as well as many derived notions - moment of inertia etc but they are significantly modified by the presence of the anti-thesis.
Question: Is Kuhns theory Marxist or Hegelian?
To clarify, Hegels use of the dialectic operates in the realm of ideas; whereas Marx, who claimed he turned Hegel 'upside down' placed the dialectic in the realm of matter: here this would be the use of physical experiment.
Certainly, in a typical theory introduction to mechanics it is the internal contradiction between two theories - Maxwells & Newtons that is resolved. But this method doesn't, I think, reflect the historical or logical reality but the theoretically efficient.