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 |
| _version_ | 1818528022758686720 |
|---|---|
| author | Yeliz Guven Oya Aktoren |
| author_facet | Yeliz Guven Oya Aktoren |
| author_sort | Yeliz Guven |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T06:44:11Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-38fabc4d155743cf9cf65c310c31bace |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2249-782X 0973-709X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T06:44:11Z |
| publishDate | 2018-10-01 |
| publisher | JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-38fabc4d155743cf9cf65c310c31bace2022-12-22T01:17:07ZengJCDR Research and Publications Private LimitedJournal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research2249-782X0973-709X2018-10-011210ZC42ZC4610.7860/JCDR/2018/36960.12281Effect of Er: YAG Laser on Cavity Preparation and Surface Treatment in Terms of MicroleakageYeliz Guven0Oya Aktoren1Faculty, Department of Pedodontics, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.Professor, Department of Pedodontics, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.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.https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/12281/36960_CE[Ra]_F(P)_PF1(AB_SHU)_PN(OM).pdfdentin-bonding agentsdental cavity preparationdental leakage |
| spellingShingle | Yeliz Guven Oya Aktoren Effect of Er: YAG Laser on Cavity Preparation and Surface Treatment in Terms of Microleakage Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research dentin-bonding agents dental cavity preparation dental leakage |
| title | Effect of Er: YAG Laser on Cavity Preparation and Surface Treatment in Terms of Microleakage |
| title_full | Effect of Er: YAG Laser on Cavity Preparation and Surface Treatment in Terms of Microleakage |
| title_fullStr | Effect of Er: YAG Laser on Cavity Preparation and Surface Treatment in Terms of Microleakage |
| title_full_unstemmed | Effect of Er: YAG Laser on Cavity Preparation and Surface Treatment in Terms of Microleakage |
| title_short | Effect of Er: YAG Laser on Cavity Preparation and Surface Treatment in Terms of Microleakage |
| title_sort | effect of er yag laser on cavity preparation and surface treatment in terms of microleakage |
| topic | dentin-bonding agents dental cavity preparation dental leakage |
| url | https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/12281/36960_CE[Ra]_F(P)_PF1(AB_SHU)_PN(OM).pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yelizguven effectoferyaglaseroncavitypreparationandsurfacetreatmentintermsofmicroleakage AT oyaaktoren effectoferyaglaseroncavitypreparationandsurfacetreatmentintermsofmicroleakage |