This in vitro study compared the microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations at bevelled enamel/composite and dentin/composite interfaces following Er:YAG laser (pre-treatment modalities: laser-etching and/or acid-etching) or conventional preparation and acid-etch, in association with two resin composite formulations and their three-step adhesive system. Class V cavities with conventional bevel produced on the lingual and buccal surfaces of eighty extracted caries- and restoration-free human teeth, were assigned to eight groups: cavities were or Er:YAG-lased and acid-etched (groups 1 and 5); or Er:YAG-lased, laser-etched and acid-etched (groups 2 and 6); or Er:YAG-lased and only laser-etched (groups 3 and 7); or cut by dental drill at high-speed and acid-etched (groups 4 and 8). The specimens were restored with Optibond FL+Herculite XRV (groups 1, 2, 3 and 4) or with Scotchbond MP+Z 100 (groups 5, 6, 7 and 8), stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, thermocycled 1500 times between 5 and 55 degrees C, placed in a 2% aqueous solution of methylene blue for 24 h at 37 degrees C, embedded in resin and sectioned. Microleakage was assessed according to the depth of dye penetration along the restoration. There were statistically significant differences between occlusal and cervical regions for all groups (P<0.01) except for groups 3 and 7. Pair-wise comparison of groups showed that acid-etch is advocated when using resin composite in Er:YAG-lased Class V cavities; the seal at enamel margins in Er:YAG-lased and laser-etched cavities depended on the resin composite formulation and corresponding adhesive (P<0.05).

RMGICs allowed less microleakage than CGICs. Complete marginal sealing was not achieved and conditioning is recommended.

The application of Ketac Fil Plus to laser-prepared enamel and dentin resulted in a better and more reproducible seal compared to conventionally prepared tooth surfaces. When using the more viscous Fuji IX application, Er:YAG lasing did not improve marginal adaptation.

The aim of this study was to investigate the microleakage in class V cavities restored with four conventionally setting glass ionomers (CGIs) and one resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) following erbium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Er:YAG) laser or conventional preparation. Four hundred class V cavities were assigned to four groups: A and B were prepared by an Er:YAG laser; C and D were conventionally prepared. In groups B and D, the surface was additionally conditioned with Ketac conditioner. Each group was divided into five subgroups according to the glass ionomer cement (GIC) used: groups 1 (Ketac Fil), 2 (Ketac Molar), 3 (Ionofil Molar), 4 (Ionofil Molar Quick) and 5 (Photac Fil Quick). After thermocycling, a 2% methylene blue solution was used as dye. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) photographs were taken to show the conditioner's effect. Complete marginal sealing could not be reached. PhotacFil showed less microleakage than the conventionally setting glass ionomer cements (CGICs) investigated. Conditioning laser-prepared cavities did not negatively influence microleakage results except for Ionofil Molar Quick.