Comparison of Er:YAG laser and acid etching methods prior to lingual retainer application in vitro
- 1 Downloads
The aim of this study is to compare the bond strength, fracture type, and the amount of microleakage related to lingual retainers bonded on enamel surface etched with either Erbium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Er:YAG) laser or acid etching methods.
The enamel of extracted 132 upper incisor teeth was etched using either 37% phosphoric acid or Er:YAG laser (Fotona Light Walker H02-N 2940 nm, 120 mJ, 10 Hz, 1.2 W in MSP mode). Teeth were embedded in acrylic as two teeth in each sample with 135° angulation and retainer wires were bonded on the lingual surface of the samples. Two-year aging protocol was applied using a chewing simulator and a thermal cycler. Shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and microleakage were measured.
SBS and microleakage data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test and ARI scores using the Pearson chi-square test. The SBS was found significantly higher in the acid-etched group. There was no statistically significant difference in the total microleakage means between groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the microleakage between the enamel-adhesive and adhesive-retainer interfaces for the mesial and distal sides. Higher microleakage values were measured between the enamel and the adhesive surfaces compared to adhesive-retainer interface for both groups.
Within the limitations of our study, acid etching promises better bond strength for lingual retainers compared to Er:YAG laser etching. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of microleakage.
KeywordsEr:YAG laser Acid etch Lingual retainer Microleakage Bond strength
This study was supported by Bezmialem Vakif University Scientific Research Projects Unit with the project number 1.2017/7.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study was approved and followed by Non-Invasive Research Ethics Committee of Bezmialem Vakif University.
- 2.Keller U, Hibst R (1990) Ultrastructural changes of enamel and dentin following Er:YAG laser radiation on teeth. OE/LASE'90, 14–19 Jan, 408–415Google Scholar
- 3.Lai C, Grossen J, Renkema A, Bronkhorst E, Fudalej P, Katsaros C (2014) Orthodontic retention procedures in Switzerland. Swiss Dent J 124:655–661Google Scholar
- 7.Alani AH, Toh CG (1997) Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent 22:173–185Google Scholar
- 9.Nimbalkar-Patil S, Vaz A, Patil P (2014) Comparative evaluation of microleakage of lingual retainer wires bonded with three different lingual retainer composites: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 8(11):83–87Google Scholar
- 10.Bulut A, Atsu S (2016) Aging procedures of dental restorative materials and chewing simulator. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni 26:180–186Google Scholar
- 13.Osorio R, Toledano M, Garcia-Godoy F (1999) Bracket bonding with 15 or 60 second etching and adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding. Angle Orthod 69:45–48Google Scholar
- 18.Lee BS, Hsieh TT, Lee YL, Lan WH, Hsu YJ, Wen PH (2003) Bond strengths of orthodontic bracket after acid-etched, Er:YAG laser-irradiated and combined treatment on enamel surface. Angle Orthod 73:565–570Google Scholar
- 22.Lorenzo MC, Portillo M, Moreno P, Montero J, Garcia A, Santos-del Riego SE (2015) Ultrashort pulsed laser conditioning of human enamel: in vitro study of the influence of geometrical processing parameters on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Lasers Med Sci 30:891–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Usumez S, Malkoc S (2000) Er,Cr,:YSGG hidrokinetik laser sistemiyle mine pürüzlendirilmesinin ortodontik apareylerin yapışma kuvvetine etkisı̇. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Dişhekimliği FakÜltesi Dergisi 3:6–8Google Scholar
- 27.Cehreli SB, Gungor HC, Karabulut E (2006) Er,Cr:YSGG laser pretreatment of primary teeth for bonded fissure sealant application: a quantitative microleakage study. J Adhes Dent 8:381–386Google Scholar
- 28.Borsatto MC, Corona SA, Ramos RP, Liporaci JL, Pecora JD, Palma-Dibb RG (2004) Microleakage at sealant/enamel interface of primary teeth: effect of Er:YAG laser ablation of pits and fissures. J Dent Child (Chic) 71:143–147Google Scholar
- 29.Vandevska-Radunovic V, Espeland L, Stenvik A (2013) Retention: type, duration and need for common guidelines. A survey of Norwegian orthodontists. Orthodontics 14:2–9Google Scholar
- 35.Toodehzaeim MH, Yassaei S, Taherimoghadam S (2015) Comparison of microleakage under rebonded stainless steel orthodontic brackets using two methods of adhesive removal: sandblast and laser. J Dent (Tehran) 12:118–124Google Scholar
- 38.Al Shamsi A, Cunningham J, Lamey P, Lynch E (2006) Shear bond strength and residual adhesive after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 76:694–699Google Scholar
- 39.Linn BJ, Berzins DW, Dhuru VB, Bradley TG (2006) A comparison of bond strength between direct-and indirect-bonding methods. Angle Orthod 76:289–294Google Scholar
- 40.Hosseini M, Namvar F, Chalipa J, Saber K, Chiniforush N, Sarmadi S, Mirhashemi AH (2012) Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel prepared by Er:YAG laser and conventional acid-etching. J Dent (Tehran) 9:20–26Google Scholar