Effect of Er: YAG Laser on Cavity Preparation and Surface Treatment in Terms of Microleakage
Published: October 1, 2018 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2018/36960.12281
Yeliz Guven, Oya Aktoren
1. Faculty, Department of Pedodontics, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
2. Professor, Department of Pedodontics, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Correspondence
Dr. Yeliz Guven,
Istanbul University, Faculty of Dentistry, Deprtment of Pedodontics Capa 34093, Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey.
E-mail: yguven@istanbul.edu.tr
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.
[
FULL TEXT ] | [ PDF]