Effect of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG Lasers on Ceramic Bracket Debonding from Composite Blocks

Mirhashemi, Amir Hossein; Hossaini, Seyed Mohammad Hashem; Etemadi, Ardavan; Kharazifard, Mohammad Javad; Bahador, Abolghasem; Soudi, Armin

doi:10.18502/fid.v16i2.1359

Cited by 17 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Time for removal was not always statistically different. However, the debonding times in general tend to be shorter for the Er:YAG laser compared to the Er,Cr:YSGG laser 20,27,29,31,50 . Both erbium lasers feature comparable times to debond orthodontic brackets (Table 2), 10,29,31 and do not result in the temperature increase inside the tooth 27 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…While both erbium lasers are efficient in debonding restorations, the Er,Cr:YSGG laser may take longer due to its lower absorption coefficients compared to the Er:YAG laser 20,27,29,31,50 . The Er,Cr:YSGG laser wavelength penetrates deeper into the tissue and requires more time to heat up to the evaporation temperature, while the substance heated by the Er:YAG laser will reach ablation temperatures faster 55 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Erbium laser‐assisted ceramic debonding: a scoping review

Deeb

Grzech‐Leśniak

Brody

et al. 2022

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Removal of ceramic restorations and appliances can be time consuming, invasive, and inconvenient. Erbium lasers offer an alternative noninvasive method for debonding of ceramic appliances. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of current literature on the effectiveness of erbium lasers for removal of ceramic restorations and appliances from natural teeth and dental implants. Methods A comprehensive search of 7 databases, including Medline (Ovid), Embase, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (DOSS), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses was performed. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were agreed prior to the literature search. Two reviewers independently screened the title and abstract. A third reviewer then broke the tie, if any. The selected articles then underwent full text review and the data was extracted. Results The search identified 4117 unique articles published through June 10, 2021. Studies were assessed and categorized based on the type of restoration/appliance, type of abutment, type of laser, laser settings, efficacy of debonding, and pulpal temperature rise. Thirty‐eight full‐text articles were reviewed for inclusion. Time for ceramic debonding varies depending on the type of restorations and materials. Removal of zirconia crowns from teeth and implant abutments requires a longer period of time compared to lithium disilicate crowns. Temperature increases were reported as 5.5 degrees or less. Laser setting and laser type affect the debonding time and the increase in temperature. Examinations of debonded ceramics demonstrated no known structural damages resulting from laser applications. Conclusions Erbium lasers are effective noninvasive tools to remove all ceramic restorations/appliances from natural teeth and implant abutments without causing harm to abutments. Laser‐assisted debonding should be considered as a viable alternative to rotary instrumentation for ceramic crowns; however, clinical studies of erbium‐assisted ceramic retrieval are needed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Erbium laser‐assisted ceramic debonding: a scoping review

Deeb

Grzech‐Leśniak

Brody

et al. 2022

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[27] In general, it appears that Er,Cr:YSGG laser is less effective but penetrates deeper and not as localized as Er:YAG in the dentin. [27][28][29][30] A previous study that utilizes the same Er:YAG laser showed that the time required to remove lithium disilicate crowns from zirconia abutments was considerably shorter, relative to the zirconia crowns used in this study. [10,11] The required time to retrieve lithium disilicate crowns from zirconia abutments was approximately 3 minutes, [10,11] compared to approximately 5 minutes for zirconia crowns in this study.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the use of pulsed erbium lasers to retrieve a zirconia crown from a zirconia implant abutment

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Removal of cement-retained implant fixed restorations when needed, can be challenging. Conventional methods of crown removal are time consuming and costly for patients and practitioners. This research explored the use of two different types of pulsed erbium lasers as a non-invasive tool to retrieve cemented zirconia crowns from zirconia implant abutments. Materials and methods Twenty identical zirconia crowns were cemented onto 20 identical zirconia prefabricated abutments using self-adhesive resin cement. The specimens were divided into two groups for laser assisted crown removal; G1 for erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser (Er: YAG), and G2 for erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium and garnet (Er,Cr: YSGG). For the G1, after the first crown removal, the specimens were re-cemented and removed again using the Er:YAG laser. Times needed to remove the crowns were recorded and analyzed using ANOVA (α = 0.05). The surfaces of the crown and the abutment were further examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analyses. Results The average times of zirconia crown removal from zirconia abutments were 5 min 20 sec and 5 min 15 sec for the Er:YAG laser of first and second experiments (G1), and 5 min 55 sec for the Er,Cr:YSGG laser experiment (G2). No statistical differences were observed

show abstract

“…Laser irradiation of ceramic brackets have been evaluated in several studies. For instance, carbon dioxide laser (CO 2 ) [ 21 – 23 ], ytterbium fiber laser, neodymium-doped yttrium–aluminium garnet (Nd:YAG) [ 24 – 26 ], Erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium and garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) [ 26 – 28 ], erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) [ 29 – 31 ], and diode laser [ 32 – 35 ] were investigated. Mode of action of lasers was reported to be via thermal ablation, photoablation, or thermal softening [ 29 , 30 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of chemical, ultrasonic, diode laser, and Er:YAG laser application on debonding of ceramic brackets

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Risk of enamel damage that often accompanies ceramic brackets debonding raises the demand of finding an optimal method for debonding of them without adverse effects. Different techniques were proposed in an attempt to facilitate their debonding. Comparison of these techniques is crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare different techniques for debonding of ceramic brackets in terms of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index. Materials and methods A total of 100 extracted premolars were randomly allocated into 5 groups. Ceramic brackets were then bonded to teeth using light cure composite resin. Among test groups; group I: served as control, group II: chemical aided debonding via peppermint oil, group III: ultrasonic aided debonding, group IV: diode laser aided debonding, and group V: Er:YAG laser aided debonding. Brackets were shear tested using universal testing machine followed by ARI assessment and evaluation of enamel microstructure was performed using scanning electron microscopy. Results A significantly lower shear bond strength was found in ultrasonic, diode, and Er:YAG laser groups. However, no significant difference was found in the chemical group. A significantly higher adhesive remnant index was found solely in Er:YAG laser group with minimal enamel microstructure alterations. Conclusions Er:YAG laser is a promising tool in debonding ceramic brackets. Ultrasonic and diode laser significantly reduced shear bond strength. Yet, adhesive remnant index in both groups revealed no difference. Chemical aided debonding had little effect and hence, it cannot be recommended without further development.

show abstract

Effect of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG Lasers on Ceramic Bracket Debonding from Composite Blocks

Cited by 17 publications

References 28 publications

Erbium laser‐assisted ceramic debonding: a scoping review

Erbium laser‐assisted ceramic debonding: a scoping review

Exploring the use of pulsed erbium lasers to retrieve a zirconia crown from a zirconia implant abutment

Assessment of chemical, ultrasonic, diode laser, and Er:YAG laser application on debonding of ceramic brackets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About