The contribution of ceramic thickness and adhesive type on the de-bonding strength of dental ceramic veneers using Er,Cr:YSGG laser.

Abstract

Resumen: Propósito: La resistencia de desunión de las carillas de cerámica mediante el uso del láser debe evaluarse en detalle. El objetivo de este estudio es determinar la contribución del espesor de la cerámica y los agentes de cementación a la resistencia de desunión de las carillas de cerámica utilizando el láser Er, Cr: YSGG. Métodos: Un total de 120 incisivos centrales maxilares se dividieron al azar en doce grupos según el grosor del disco, el agente de cementación y el uso del láser Er, Cr: YSGG. En condiciones de laboratorio, se aplicaron en las superficies de los dientes 120 discos del sistema IPS Empress II de 0,5mm, 1mm y 2mm de grosor, para uso con láser. Se aplicó un sistema láser Er, Cr: YSGG a la superficie central de los discos IPS Empress II en muestras de todos los grupos de láser (Grupos 1,3,5,7,9,11). Luego, la resistencia de la unión al cizallamiento (SBS) para todas las muestras se probó con una máquina de prueba a una velocidad de 0.5mm/min. Los valores de SBS se consideraron como la fuerza de desunión. Resultados: Los valores medios de resistencia de desunión para los Grupos 9 y 11 (espesor de disco de 0,5mm + aplicación de láser) demostró la carga media más baja (0,000 N), mientras que el Grupo 4 (espesor de disco de 2 mm + sin láser) tuvo la carga media más alta (573.885 N). Las fuerzas de desunión de todos los grupos sin aplicación

The efficiency of ErCr:YSGG laser on the debonding of different thicknesses of ceramic veneers

“…This came in agreement with other studies. Yilmaz et al 1 (2019) used 120 IPS Empress II discs of three different thicknesses (0.5 mm , 1 mm, 2 mm) and found that during laser debonding, the 2 mm discs needed more debonding force than the 1 mm and 0.5 mm and that all the 0.5 mm discs were debonded without any external load during the laser exposure. Giraldo Cifuentes et al 27 (2020) tested four different thicknesses (0.4 mm, 0.8 mm, 1.2 mm and 1.6 mm) and concluded that the thicker veneers demonstrated greater resistance to debonding than the thinner ones.…”

“…An initial cure of 1 s. from each side of the disc with the LED curing light was applied to remove excess cement. The final cure of the cement was accomplished afterwards with a 20 s. light-cure with the curing light in contact with the glass slide and figure (1) shows the completed cemented disc. Finally, the samples were stored in distilled water and stored at 37°C for 24 h. prior to the debonding procedure 16 .…”

“…Laminate veneers are considered conservative esthetic restorations that are very thin ceramic facings which consist of 0.5 to 1.0 mm thick ceramic adhesively bonded by a light-curing or self-curing resin cement, after the tooth has received minimally invasive preparation, which is usually restricted to enamel 1 . The great interest of these indirect restorations is due to their conservative preparation, resistance to fracture, high aesthetic quality, reduced discoloration, good tissue acceptance, lower debonding rate, and patient satisfaction 2 .…”

“…Therefore, in order to eliminate the drawbacks of conventional removal method and to decrease the irreversible enamel surface harm, laser assisted veneer debonding have been suggested 1 . This new technique of veneer debonding was inspired by its practice on orthodontic ceramic brackets that began in early 1990s 4 and which its success was evidenced by several studies 8,9 .…”

Er:YAG Laser Debonding of Lithium Disilicate Laminate Veneers: Effect of Laser Power Settings and Veneer Thickness on The Debonding Time and Pulpal Temperature

“…10 When veneer removal is dictated, the conventional way is achieved by using traditional instruments with mechanical force, such as crown tractors, chisels, manual or automatic removers, 11 or a rotary instrument using a diamond bur to grind the veneer. 12 Although veneer debonding by grinding is complete, it is timeconsuming and associated with patient discomfort, and the underlying tooth structure may be affected due to friction, heat, vibration, and the integrity of the veneers being compromised. 13 Another factor to be considered is the difficulty of differentiating the veneer margin from the tooth structure due to the high aesthetic standard of modern restorative materials, leading to excessive tooth structure loss during veneer removal.…”