Premium
Assessing microleakage of class V resin composite restorations after Er:YAG laser and bur preparation
Author(s) -
Aranha Ana Cecilia Corrêa,
Turbino Mirian Lacalle,
Powell G. Lynn,
Eduardo Carlos de Paula
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
lasers in surgery and medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.888
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1096-9101
pISSN - 0196-8092
DOI - 10.1002/lsm.20208
Subject(s) - adhesive , materials science , er:yag laser , composite number , laser , dentistry , diamond , methylene blue , composite material , chemistry , optics , medicine , biochemistry , physics , layer (electronics) , photocatalysis , catalysis
Background and Objective This study aimed to evaluate the extent of microleakage in cavities prepared with bur and Er:YAG laser, hybridized with different bonding systems. Study Design Sixty bovine teeth were randomly divided into six groups (n = 10): (G1) Diamond bur + Single Bond; (G2) Diamond bur + AdheSE; (G3) Diamond bur + Clearfil SE Bond; (G4) Er:YAG (250 mJ, 4 Hz, 80.6 J/cm 2 ) + Single Bond; (G5)Er:YAG + AdheSE, and (G6) Er:YAG + Clearfil. Cavities were restored with a micro‐hybrid composite resin. After thermocycling, the specimens were stained with 2% methylene blue solution and sectioned in the mesiodistal direction. Dye penetration was scored based upon the extent of the dye using a light stereoscope. Results The Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney test revealed no statistically significant differences between the method of preparation (diamond bur and laser). However, statistical differences were found between the adhesives tested. Conclusion Based on the results of this study, Er:YAG laser confirmed to be as effective as the conventional methods for preparing adhesive restorations. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.