Removal of lithium disilicate veneers with Er,Cr:YSGGL laser: now? Or after ageing?

Yıldız, Pınar; Ünlü, Damla Güneş; Çevlik, Esra Talay; Üşümez, Aslıhan

doi:10.1007/s10103-022-03689-8

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A high water content is also found in adhesive luting materials, which provide the possibility to debond ceramic restorations. Recent studies have demonstrated a predictable way of retrieving ceramic restorations with Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSSG lasers [7,[10][11][12][13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimized Erbium-Doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Er:YAG) Laser Parameters for the Removal of Dental Ceramic Restorations

Laky,

Toth,

Laky

et al. 2023

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The use of lasers for debonding adhesively luted ceramic restorations is a rather recent oral laser application in dentistry. The removal of all-ceramic restorations in the mouth can often be a troublesome task. A novel method for the debonding of ceramic restorations without damaging the restorations is Er:YAG laser irradiation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the Er:YAG laser for debonding procedures of different dental ceramics and to identify appropriate laser settings. Material and methods: Lithium disilicate, zirconium-reinforced lithium silicate, feldspatic ceramic, and zirconium dioxide were investigated. Ten ceramic rectangular-shaped specimens with 1 and 2 mm thickness were produced from each material. All specimens were irradiated with four different power settings 1.5; 2.5; 3.5; 4.5 W, pulse duration 50 μs, laser repetition rate 10 Hz, time of irradiation 10 s. The transmitted energy was measured with a powermeter. Additionally the suitability of the Er:YAG laser to remove the adhesively bonded ceramic and the time until loss of retention was evaluated. Results: The transmission rate for 1 and 2 mm platelets was determined for zirconium-reinforced lithium silicate at 54.6%/35.6%, lithium disilicate at 53.2%/35.7%, zirconium dioxide at 40.6%/32.4%, and for the feldspathic ceramic at 19.4%/10.1%. For zirconium-reinforced lithium silicate and zirconium dioxide 2.5 W (250 mJ/10 Hz) was an appropriate energy level for effective debonding. Whereas for lithium disilicate and for feldspathic ceramic, 4.5 W (450 mJ/10 Hz) is required for efficient debonding. Conclusions: There are differences regarding transmission rates between ceramic types for the Er:YAG laser light and additionally depending on the type of ceramic different energy settings should be used for adequate debonding. Based on our in-vitro experiments we recommend 2.5 W for zirconium-reinforced lithium silicate and zirconium dioxide and 4.5 W for lithium disilicate and feldspatic ceramic. Transmission rates of different ceramic types and varying influences of thicknesses and bonding materials should be considered to adjust the laser parameters during laser debonding of adhesively luted all-ceramic restorations.

show abstract