Effect of Er: YAG Laser on Cavity Preparation and Surface Treatment in Terms of Microleakage
Introduction: Er:YAG laser is one of the most preferred laser types used in preparation of dental hard tissues. Since lased dentin surfaces have significantly different characteristics when compared to bur-prepared surfaces, adhesion performance of adhesive systems may differ, too. Microleakage is a...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
2018-10-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/12281/36960_CE[Ra]_F(P)_PF1(AB_SHU)_PN(OM).pdf |
| Summary: | Introduction: Er:YAG laser is one of the most preferred laser types used in preparation of dental hard tissues. Since lased dentin surfaces have significantly different characteristics when compared to bur-prepared surfaces, adhesion performance of adhesive systems may differ, too. Microleakage is an important determinant in assessing the success of restorative materials and cavity preparation methods. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the microleakage of three different adhesive systems in Er:YAG laser and bur prepared cavities. Materials and Methods: Cavities prepared either with Er:YAG laser or diamond bur were randomly assigned to eight groups (n=10): Group 1: Laser preparation+Clearfil Tri-S (C3S) Bond; Group 2: Laser preparation+Adper SE Plus (SE) Bond; Group 3: Laser preparation+ laser etching+ Adper Single Bond 2 (SB2); Group 4: Laser preparation+ acid etching+ SB2; Group 5: Laser preparation+SB2 (no etching); Group 6: Bur+acid etching+SB2; Group 7: Bur+C3S; Group 8: Bur+SE. The groups prepared conventionally (Groups 6-8) served as control groups. The teeth/ restoration interfaces were assessed for dye penetration by a stereomicroscope and an image analysis program. The data was analysed by Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: The highest microleakage was observed in the gingival interface of Group 5 and the lowest microleakage was seen in the occlusal interface of Group 3 and Group 6. When the effects of laser and bur preparation methods on occlusal and gingival microleakage levels were compared, the statistically significant difference was found between the SE Bond-applied groups (Groups 2 and 8). SE Bond has demonstrated significantly less microleakage in Er:YAG laser prepared cavities than bur prepared cavities. Conclusion: Interaction pattern of the adhesive systems with the lased substrate can differ from those with the conventional ones and particular characteristics of the adhesive systems have a strong influence on the success of the resin–dentin bond. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2249-782X 0973-709X |