Microleakage of Four Different Restorative Glass Ionomer Formulations in Class V Cavities: Er:YAG Laser versus Conventional Preparation

Delmé, Katleen; Deman, Peter J.; Bruyne, Mieke De; Moor, R. J. G. De

doi:10.1089/pho.2007.2227

Cited by 19 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cavity conditioner provided for this product is composed of aqueous polyacrylic acid with aluminium chloride. While the aluminium chloride acts as a wetting promoter, polyacrylic acid provides the carboxyl group for hydrogen bonding, which is then displaced by the stronger interaction of polar and ionic attraction from the glass ionomer setting reaction [9]. Apparently, pre-treatment of bur-prepared cavities with the conditioner in the EQA system significantly improved the marginal adaptation compared to the CFR and IAC groups, which were not treated with dentin conditioner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er:YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite

Peker

Giray

Durmuş

et al. 2016

Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effect of tooth preparation method (diamond bur vs. Er:YAG laser) on the microleakage levels of glass ionomers and resin composite. Human permanent premolars (N = 80) were randomly divided into two groups (n = 40). Cavities on half of the teeth were prepared using diamond bur for enamel and carbide bur for dentin and the other half using Er:YAG laser. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups according to the restoration materials, namely (a) ChemFil Rock (CFR), (b) IonoluxAC (IAC), (c) EQUIA system (EQA) and one resin composite (d) AeliteLS (ALS) (n = 10 per group). Microleakage (m) was assessed at the occlusal and gingival margins after dye penetration (0.5% basic fuchsine for 24 h). On the occlusal aspect, while the cavity preparation types significantly affected the microleakage for CFR (p = 0.015), IAC (p = 0.001) glass ionomer restorations, it did not show significant effect for glass ionomer EQA (p = 0.09) and resin composite ALS (p = 0.2). Er:YAG laser presented less microleakage compared to bur preparation in all groups except for EQA. On the gingival aspect, microleakage decreased significantly for CFR (p = 0.02), IAC (p = 0.001), except for EQA where significant increase was observed (p = 0.001) with the use of Er:YAG laser. Microleakage decrease was not significant at the gingival region between diamond bur and Er:YAG laser for ALS (p = 0.663). At the occlusal and gingival sites in all groups within each preparation method, microleakage level was not significant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Resin composite and glass ionomers are commonly used tooth-coloured direct restorative materials indicated for class V cavities [6]. Glass ionomers are biocompatible adhesive restorative materials that have the capacity to bond to tooth structures in addition to releasing fluoride and increases re-mineralization [7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er:YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite

Peker

Giray

Durmuş

et al. 2016

Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Photographs were taken at 100 · , 500 · , and 3000· magnification. 9,10 Part II: Microleakage evaluation For the microleakage test, 60 samples were randomly allocated into four groups (15 teeth per group) after laser irradiation of the root surface. All samples were restored with the AdperÔ PromptÔ L-PopÔ self-etch adhesive (3M/ ESPE) system.…”

Section: Part I: Morphological Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microleakage of Self-Etch Adhesive System in Class V Cavities Prepared by Using Er:YAG Laser with Different Pulse Modes

Phanombualert

Chimtim

Heebthamai

et al. 2015

Photomedicine and Laser Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have sought to evaluate the microleakage from GIC restorations in cavities prepared by the methods used in this study, but the previous studies were performed in sound dental tissue, thus not reproducing clinical situations [22][23][24]. For that reason, we chose to induce caries lesions in human root dentin fragments and to analyse the marginal sealing of restorations placed in cavities resulted from the caries treatment, thus simulating clinical situations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Application of a weak acid, such as polyacrylic acid, is strongly indicated as a pretreatment of the dentin surface because it cleans the surface and optimizes contact between the restorative material and the substrate by eliminating only the smear layer without demineralising the dentin or removing smear plugs [32]. Such treatment keeps calcium ions available for chemical reaction with the cement, and also avoids contamination of the restoration by moisture from dentinal fluids [22].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of different root caries treatments on the sealing ability of conventional glass ionomer cement restorations

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we compared the microleakage of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations following the use of different methods of root caries removal. In vitro root caries were induced in 75 human root dentin samples that were divided in five groups of 15 each according to the method used for caries removal: in group 1 spherical carbide burs at low speed were used, in group 2 a hand-held excavator was used, and in groups 3 to 5 an Er,Cr:YSGG laser was used at 2.25 W, 40.18 J/cm 2 (group 3), 2.50 W, 44.64 J/cm 2 (group 4) and 2.75 W, 49.11 J/cm 2 (group 5). The air/water cooling during irradiation was set to 55%/65% respectively. All cavities were filled with GIC. Five samples from each group were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and the other ten samples were thermocycled and submitted to a microleakage test. The data obtained were compared by ANOVA followed by Fisher's test (p≤0.05). Group 4 showed the lowest microleakage index (56.65 6.30; p<0.05). There were no significant differences among the other groups. On SEM images samples of groups 1 and 2 showed a more regular interface than the irradiated samples. Demineralized dentin below the restoration was observed, that was probably affected dentin. Group 4 showed the lowest microleakage values compared to the other experimental groups, so under the conditions of the present study the method that provided the lowest microleakage was the Er,Cr:YSGG laser with a power output of 2.5 W yielding an energy density of 44.64 J/cm 2 .

show abstract

Microleakage of Four Different Restorative Glass Ionomer Formulations in Class V Cavities: Er:YAG Laser versus Conventional Preparation

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

Cited by 19 publications

References 31 publications

Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er:YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite

Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er:YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite

Microleakage of Self-Etch Adhesive System in Class V Cavities Prepared by Using Er:YAG Laser with Different Pulse Modes

Effect of different root caries treatments on the sealing ability of conventional glass ionomer cement restorations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About