Advertisement

Lasers in Medical Science

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 1453–1460 | Cite as

Microleakage of Er:YAG laser and dental bur prepared cavities in primary teeth restored with different adhesive restorative materials

  • Ali Baghalian
  • Yahya B. Nakhjavani
  • Tabassom HooshmandEmail author
  • Pouria Motahhary
  • Hoda Bahramian
Original Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect of erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser irradiation and conventional dental bur cavity preparation on in vitro microleakage of class V cavities restored with different adhesive restorative materials and two types of self-etching adhesives in primary teeth. Standard class V cavities were prepared on 80 extracted primary, and the teeth were randomly divided into eight subgroups prepared either by dental bur or Er:YAG laser irradiation and then restored with self-cured glass ionomer (GI), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), resin composite and Clearfil SE Bond (two-step self-etching adhesive), and resin composite and Clearfil S3 Bond (one-step self-etching adhesive). Restorations were finished and stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h and then subjected to thermocycling. All the teeth were sealed with nail varnish, placed in a silver nitrate solution, and then vertically cut in a buccolingually direction. Subsequently, the specimens were evaluated for gingival and occlusal microleakage using a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Mann–Whitney test. Wilcoxon test was used for comparing occlusal microleakage with gingival microleakage at p < 0.05. A higher degree of occlusal and gingival microleakage values for the teeth restored with GI or RMGI was obtained by both preparation methods compared with that of resin composites and the two self-etching primers. Er:YAG laser irradiation resulted in a significantly higher degree of microleakage only at the gingival margins for teeth restored with GI or RMGI, or composite and Clearfil S3 Bond compared with the bur preparation. The Er:YAG laser-prepared teeth restored with composite and Clearfil SE Bond demonstrated a better marginal seal on occlusal and gingival margins compared with that of bur-prepared cavities. The degree of microleakage in class V cavities was affected by the type of adhesive restorative materials, type of self-etching adhesive, cavity margin location, and tooth preparation method either by Er:YAG laser or dental bur.

Keywords

Er:YAG laser Microleakage Glass ionomer Resin composite Self-etching adhesive Primary teeth 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Laser Research Center of Dentistry at Tehran University of Medical Sciences. We thank Dr. M.J. Kharazifard for his invaluable assistance in the statistical analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    Jahn KR, Zuhrt R (1990) Black’s rules for cavity preparation—anachronism or adequate plumb line? Stomatol DDR 40:223–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peters MC, Mclean ME (2001) Minimally invasive operative care. I. Minimal intervention and concepts for minimally invasive cavity preparations. J Adhes Dent 3:7–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brostek AM, Bochenek AJ, Walsch LJ (2006) Minimally invasive dentistry: a review and update. Shangai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 15:225–249Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kornblit R, Trapani D, Bossu M, Muller-Bolla M, Rocca JP, Polimeni A (2008) The use of erbium:YAG laser for caries removal in pediatric patients following minimally invasive dentistry concepts. Eur J Paediatr Dent 9:81–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delmé KI, Deman PJ, De Bruyne MA, Demoor RJ (2008) Microleakage of four different restorative glass ionomer formulations in class V cavities: Er:YAG laser versus conventional preparation. Photomed Laser Surg 26:541–549PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shaffer RA, Charlton DG, Hermesch CB (1998) Repairability of three resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Oper Dent 23:168–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glasspoole EA, Erickson RL, Davidson CL (2002) Effect of surface treatment on the bond strength of glass ionomer to enamel. Dent Mater 18:454–462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pereira LC, Nunes MC, Dibb RG, Powers JM, Roulet JF, Navarro MF (2002) Mechanical properties and bond strength of glass ionomer cements. J Adhes Dent 4:73–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitra SB (1991) Adhesion to dentin and physical properties of a light-cured glass-ionomer liner/base. J Dent Res 70:72–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Uno S, Finger WJ, Fritz U (1996) Long-term mechanical characteristic of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Dent Mater 12:64–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pashley DH, Carvalho RM (1997) Dentine permeability and dentine adhesion. J Dent 25:355–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kidd EA (1976) Microleakage; a review. J Dent 4:199–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haller B, Hofmann N, Klemen J, Klaiber B (1993) Er:YAG laser preparation and Kamposit-Dentinhaftung in vitro (Er:YAG laser preparation and attachment between composite and dentin in vitro). Deutsch Zahnarztl Z 48:707–712Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Anusavice KJ, Kincheloe JE (1987) Comparison of pain associated with mechanical and chemomechanical removal of caries. J Dent Res 66:1680–1683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirzioglu Z, Gurbuz T, Yilmaz Y (2007) Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical and mechanical caries removal: status of the restoration at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Clin Oral Investig 11:69–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rankin JA, Harris MB (1984) Dental anxiety: the patient’s point of view. J Am Dent Assoc 109:43–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roebuck EM, Whitters CJ, Saunders WP (2001) The influence of three erbium:YAG laser energies on the in vitro microleakage of class V compomer resin restorations. Int J Paediatr Dent 11:49–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stanbholz A, Zeltser R, Sela M, Peretz B, Moshonov J, Ziskind D (2003) The use of lasers in dentistry: principles of operation and clinical application. Compend Contin Educ Dent 24:935–948, quiz 949Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keller U, Hibst R (1989) Experimental studies of the application of the Er:YAG laser on dental hard substances: II. Light microscopic and SEM investigations. Lasers Surg Med 9:345–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoke JA, Burkes E, Gomes ED, Wolbarsht ML (1990) Erbium:YAG (294 mum) laser effects on dental tissues. J Laser Appl 2:61–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burkes EJJR, Hoke J, Gomes E, Wolbarsht M (1992) Wet versus dry enamel ablation by Er:YAG laser. J Prosthet Dent 67:847–851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aranha AC, Turbino ML, Powell GL, CdeP E (2005) Assessing microleakage of class V resin composite restorations after Er:YAG laser and bur preparation. Lasers Surg Med 37:172–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kornblit R, Bossù M, Mari D, Rocca JP, Polimeni A (2009) Enamel and dentine of deciduous teeth Er:YAG laser prepared. A SEM study. Eur J Paediatr Dent 10:75–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Watson TF, Billington RW, Williams JA (1991) The interfacial region of tooth/glass ionomer restoration: a confocal optical microscope study. Am J Dent 4:303–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Watson T, Banerjee A (1993) Effectiveness of glass ionomer surface protection treatments: a scanning optical microscope study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2:85–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilson AD, Paddon JM (1993) Dimensional changes occurring in a glass ionomer cement. Am J Dent 6:280–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wieczkowski G, Joynt RB, Davis EL, Yu XY, Cleary K (1992) Leakage patterns associated with glass-ionomer-based restorations. Oper Dent 17:21–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Delmé KI, Deman PJ, Nammour S, De Moor RJ (2006) Microleakage of class V glass ionomer restoration after conventional and Er:YAG laser preparation. Photomed Laser Surg 24:715–722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chinelatti MA, Ramos RP, Chimello DT, Borsatto MC, Pécora JD, Palma-Dibb RG (2004) Influence of the use of Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation and surface treatment in microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer restorations. Oper Dent 29:430–436PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Corona SA, Borsatto MC, Pecora JD, De SA, Rocha RA, Ramos TS, Palma-Dibb RG (2003) Assessing microleakage of different class V restorations after Er:YAG laser and bur preparation. J Oral Rehabil 30:1008–1014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wright GZ, McConnell RJ, Keller U (1993) Microleakage of class V composite restorations prepared conventionally with those prepared with an Er:YAG laser a pilot study. Pediatr Dent 15:425–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cozean C, Arcoria CJ, Pelagalli J, Powel GL (1997) Dentistry for the 21st century? Erbium:YAG laser for teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 128:1080–1087PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Kimura Y, Yamada Y, Ito M, Matsumuto K (2000) Caries preventive effect of Er:YAG laser irradiation with or without water mist. J Clin Laser Med Surg 18:61–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Attar N, Bicer CO, Firatli E (2010) Microleakage and scanning electron microscopy evaluation of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites prepared by erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser and bur. Lasers Med Sci 25:493–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Borsatto MC, Corona SA, Chinelatti MA, Ramos RP, de Sá Rocha RA, Pecora JD, Palma-Dibb RG (2006) Comparison of marginal microleakage of flowable composite restorations in primary molars prepared by high-speed carbide bur, Er:YAG laser, and air abrasion. J Dent Child (Chic) 73:122–126Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28:215–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh B, Carvalho R, Miller M (2004) Single step self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part I. Bond strength and morphological evidence. Am J Dent 17:271–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Van Landuyt KL, Mine A, De Munck J, Jaecques S, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2009) Are one-step adhesives easier to use and better performing? Multifactorial assessment of contemporary one-step self-etching adhesives. J Adhes Dent 11:175–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nunes TG, Ceballos L, Osorio R, Toledano M (2005) Spatially resolved photopolymerization kinetics and oxygen inhibition in dental adhesives. Biomaterials 26:1809–1817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pashley EL, Agee KA, Pashley DH, Tay FR (2002) Effects of one versus two applications of an unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding. J Dent 30:83–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cadenaro M, Antoniolli F, Sauro S, Tay FR, Di Lenarda R, Prati C, Biasotto M, Contardo L, Breschi L (2005) Degree of conversion and permeability of dental adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci 113:525–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rossi RR, Aranha AC, Eduardo Cde P, Ferreira LS, Navarro RS, Zezell DM (2008) Microleakage of glass ionomer restoration in cavities prepared by Er, Cr:YSGG laser irradiation in primary teeth. J Dent Child (Chic) 75:151–157Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Yamada Y, Murakami Y, Matsumoto K (2002) Microleakage of composite resin restoration in cavities prepared by Er, Cr:YSGG laser irradiation and etched bur cavities in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 26:263–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kohara EK, Hossain M, Kimura Y, Matsumoto K, Inoue M, Sasa R (2002) Morphological and microleakage studies of the cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser irradiation in primary teeth. J Clin Laser Med Surg 20:141–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Quo BC, Drummond JL, Koerber A, Fadavi S, Punwani I (2002) Glass ionomer microleakage from preparations by an Er/YAG laser or a high-speed handpiece. J Dent 30:141–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Attar N, Korkmaz Y, Ozel E, Bicer CO, Firatli E (2008) Microleakage of class V cavities with different adhesive systems prepared by a diamond instrument and different parameters of Er:YAG laser irradiation. Photomed Laser Surg 26:585–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Baghalian
    • 1
  • Yahya B. Nakhjavani
    • 2
  • Tabassom Hooshmand
    • 3
    Email author
  • Pouria Motahhary
    • 4
  • Hoda Bahramian
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental SchoolQazvin University of Medical SciencesQazvinIran
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of DentistryTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of Dental Biomaterials, Laser Research Center of Dentistry/Research Center for Science and Technology in Medicine, School of DentistryTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  4. 4.Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology, School of DentistryTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  5. 5.Department of Oral Public Health, School of DentistryTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations