Effect of the erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser or diamond bur cavity preparation on the marginal microleakage of class V cavities restored with different adhesives and composite systems

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the microleakage of Er:YAG laser and diamond bur on different bonding systems in class V restorations. Class V cavities were prepared with Er:YAG laser or diamond bur on 80 intact human molars. Teeth were randomly distributed into ten groups and cavities were restored with CeramX duo (DENTSPLY) or Filtek Silorane (3M/ESPE) using different bonding materials (One Coat 7.0 (Coltène), XP Bond (DENTSPLY), Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray), AdperSE (3M/ESPE), and Silorane System Adhesive (3M/ESPE). All specimens were subjected to thermocycling and load cycling. After being immersed in silver nitrate dye, the specimens were sectioned. Microleakage was evaluated by stereomicroscope and SEM. Data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests. Statistically differences were found between groups (p > 0.05) and cavities prepared with the Er:YAG laser showed higher microleakage than diamond bur. The microleakage of different bonding systems was influenced by the choice of diamond bur or Er:YAG laser for class V composite cavity preparation.

In vitro microleakage of class v composite restorations prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser and carbide bur

“…When comparing microleakage between enamel and dentin margins for all groups and each one of the samples individually, dentinal margins demonstrate vastly larger amounts of dye penetration. In agreement with this observation is a summation of the published literature 1,3,8,10,12,23,[27][28][29][30]32,37,38,44,45 . This agreement can be attributed to the more difficult and technically sensitive procedure involving adhesion to dentin 8 , as well as to the more complex and reduced inorganic content of the dentin compared to enamel 1 .…”

“…Although the mechanical, physical and esthetic properties of contemporary composites have improved in comparison to their predecessors, polymerization shrinkage and its related stress remain a major concern which requires improvement 3,4 . Achieving good marginal sealing remains a considerable challenge in composite restorations 5 .…”

Marginal microleakage of class V resin-based composite restorations bonded with six one-step self-etch systems

“…The latter system also presented lower microleakage at the dentin margins than Clearfil S 3 Bond. 16 Yaman et al 17 found lower microleakage for XP Bond (a twostep etch-and-rinse system) compared to One Coat 7.0. Owens and Johnson 18 found lower performance at the enamel margins and higher sealing at the dentin margins using Xeno IV and Clearfil S 3 Bond, respectively, as compared to iBond and G-Bond.…”

Effect of Air Abrasion Preconditioning on Microleakage in Class V Restorations Under Cyclic Loading: An In-vitro Study

“…When teeth are subjected to mechanical stress, because of difference in modulus of elasticity of tooth and restoration, the integrity of restoration-tooth margin deteriorates over a period of time [3,10,24,25]. Use of lasers for cavity preparation has not shown any improvement in microleakage sealing when compared to the conventional diamond bur preparation, highlighting the importance and need of suitable restorative material [26]. The use of silorane based composites has also been suggested for restoration of class V cavities in a recent study [27].…”