Clinical Evaluation of 532-nm Green Laser on Dentin Hypersensitivity: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Hu, Suning; Yuan, Lintian; Wang, Meng-Qi; Wang, Yuguang; Zhou, Yongsheng

doi:10.1089/photob.2021.0046

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Laser technology was used in various dental applications such as caries prevention, cavity preparation and disinfection, and management of hypersensitive teeth. [1][2][3][4] The most commonly used laser is the erbium laser, with two distinct types (erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium, and garnet [Er,Cr:YSGG] and erbium-doped yttrium, aluminum, and garnet [Er: YAG] lasers). Compared to other dental laser types such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd: YAG) lasers, erbium lasers have a higher affinity for hydroxyapatite and water absorption.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Erbium, Chromium-doped: Yttrium, Scandium, Gallium and Garnet Laser Tooth Preparation on Gap Formation of Universal Adhesive Bonded to Enamel and Dentin: A Micro-CT and SEM Study

AlQussier

Awliya

2022

J Lasers Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The presence of gaps at the bonding interface of resin composite restorations is known to have an impact on restoration longevity. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium, and garnet (Er, Cr:YSGG) laser irradiation on gap formation at the tooth–resin interface and to compare the reliability of micro-computed tomography (µCT) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) scans for gap formation assessment. Methods: Thirty standardized non-retentive class V cavities were prepared on sound human premolars using either an Er,Cr:YSGG laser or a round carbide bur (n=15 for each). A universal adhesive and A nano-filled resin composite were applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. After water storage for 24 hours at 37°C, the teeth were subjected to thermocycling. Gap formation assessments were performed by µCT (Skyscan 1173 µCT, Brucker, Belgium) and SEM (JEOL JSM-6610LV, Japan), and SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Inc., Chicago, USA) was used to analyze the data at P value<0.05. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the gap formation percentages. To compare the impact of both preparation and assessment methods, a non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was used. Results: In enamel, similar gap formation values were detected for the two preparation methods (bur and laser). However, the laser-prepared group showed higher gap formation values in dentin. Additionally, higher gap formation values were reported for both preparation methods when µCT was used for assessment. Conclusion: Cavity preparation using a Waterlase laser led to higher gap formation percentages at the dentin–resin interface. In addition, SEM assessment is more reliable for assessing the tooth–resin interface.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%