Microleakage of Er:YAG laser and dental bur prepared cavities in primary teeth restored with different adhesive restorative materials
- 669 Downloads
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.
KeywordsEr:YAG laser Microleakage Glass ionomer Resin composite Self-etching adhesive Primary teeth
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.
- 3.Brostek AM, Bochenek AJ, Walsch LJ (2006) Minimally invasive dentistry: a review and update. Shangai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 15:225–249Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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