Re: “Influence of Er:YAG laser irradiation distance on the bond strength of a restorative system to enamel” by D.T. Chimello-Sousa, et al. [J. Dentist. 34 (2006) 245–251]

Bond strength of an adhesive system irradiated with Nd:YAG laser in dentin treated with Er:YAG laser

“…The hypothesis was that the low fluencies applied in this previous study (13.04 and 21.7 J/cm 2 ) were not enough to show significant statistical differences to modify the dentin among the irradiated and non-irradiated groups [37]. There was a statistical significant difference among the adhesion average values from the G1 (28.33 MPa) and G3 (13.70 MPa) groups in the present study where a higher fluency was applied (60 J/cm 2 ) being in accordance with several studies in the literature [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25].…”

“…Then, the rods were dyed with a 2% blue methylene solution for 1 minute, rinsed for 1 minute, kept at a temperature of 37 • C for 24 hours and submitted to the fracture analysis using a digital microscope (MIC-D, Olympus, Philipines) connected to a microcomputer in order to capture the images at a magnification of 75×. The photographs were analyzed and the fractures classified as being: adhesive (fracture at the adhesive margin); mixed (fracture involving the adhesive and dentin or resin margins), dentin cohesive (fracture at the dentin) and resin cohesive (fracture at the resin) [15,16,22,25,31,32].…”

“…Several studies demonstrated that the dentin features after the Er:YAG laser irradiation are not compatible with the nowadays composite resins [9][10][11][12][13]. Other research papers show that the composite resin bond strength to the Er:YAG irradiated dentin is inferior when compared with the non-irradiated ones [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25].…”