The effect of Er:YAG laser and bulk filled composite type on marginal adaptation of class II cavities: an SEM analysis study

Tekçe, Neslihan; Tuncer, Safa; Demırcı, Mustafa; Özel, Emre; Aykor, Arzu

doi:10.1080/01694243.2018.1442283

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…No studies in the literature have evaluated the bond strength between bulk fill composite and Er: YAG laser-treated dentin. However, a study reported by Tekce et al 29 (2018) evaluated, qualitatively and quantitatively, the microleakage of bulk fill in enamel prepared with diamond bur or laser through SEM analysis and like in the LA group of this study, also found irregular hybrid layer and gaps at the adhesive interface, even though it was statistically similar to the conventional preparation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 51%

Bond strength of bulk fill composite to teeth prepared with Er

Benati

Baioni

Souza

et al. 2022

Braz.j. of oral sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The present in vitro study aimed to evaluate the bond strength of a bulk fill composite on dentin surfaces prepared with the Er: YAG laser. Methods: Twenty-four permanent third molars were selected and divided into 2 groups: CP - Conventional preparation with high-speed handpiece (control) and LA (laser) - Preparation with Er: YAG laser. The occlusal surface was removed to expose coronal dentin, which was subsequently prepared with a high-speed handpiece or Er: YAG laser (350mJ, 4Hz, 1.5 ml/min water flow). Both groups were restored with Filtek One Bulk Fill (3M ESPE) composite resin. After 24 hours, the samples were evaluated for microtensile bond strength (μTBS), fracture pattern, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results: The data obtained in the μTBS test were submitted to t-test (α=0.05). The results showed no difference in μTBS when the different types of cavity preparation were compared (ρ=0.091). Fracture patterns revealed the prevalence of cohesive fracture in composite resin in CP (83.3%) and adhesive fracture in LA (92.1%). In the SEM analysis, the LA group demonstrated the presence of gaps between the composite resin and the irradiated dentin surface. The hybrid layer exhibited more regularity with the presence of longer and uniform resin tags in the CP group. Conclusion: The type of cavity preparation did not influence the values of bulk fill composite resin μTBS to dentin. Fracture patterns and scanning electron microscopy analyses suggested less interference at the adhesive interface in preparations performed using CP.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 51%

Bond strength of bulk fill composite to teeth prepared with Er

Benati

Baioni

Souza

et al. 2022

Braz.j. of oral sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Laser technology was used in various dental applications such as caries prevention, cavity preparation and disinfection, and management of hypersensitive teeth. [1][2][3][4] The most commonly used laser is the erbium laser, with two distinct types (erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium, and garnet [Er,Cr:YSGG] and erbium-doped yttrium, aluminum, and garnet [Er: YAG] lasers). Compared to other dental laser types such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd: YAG) lasers, erbium lasers have a higher affinity for hydroxyapatite and water absorption.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Erbium, Chromium-doped: Yttrium, Scandium, Gallium and Garnet Laser Tooth Preparation on Gap Formation of Universal Adhesive Bonded to Enamel and Dentin: A Micro-CT and SEM Study

AlQussier

Awliya

2022

J Lasers Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The presence of gaps at the bonding interface of resin composite restorations is known to have an impact on restoration longevity. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium, and garnet (Er, Cr:YSGG) laser irradiation on gap formation at the tooth–resin interface and to compare the reliability of micro-computed tomography (µCT) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) scans for gap formation assessment. Methods: Thirty standardized non-retentive class V cavities were prepared on sound human premolars using either an Er,Cr:YSGG laser or a round carbide bur (n=15 for each). A universal adhesive and A nano-filled resin composite were applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. After water storage for 24 hours at 37°C, the teeth were subjected to thermocycling. Gap formation assessments were performed by µCT (Skyscan 1173 µCT, Brucker, Belgium) and SEM (JEOL JSM-6610LV, Japan), and SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Inc., Chicago, USA) was used to analyze the data at P value<0.05. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the gap formation percentages. To compare the impact of both preparation and assessment methods, a non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was used. Results: In enamel, similar gap formation values were detected for the two preparation methods (bur and laser). However, the laser-prepared group showed higher gap formation values in dentin. Additionally, higher gap formation values were reported for both preparation methods when µCT was used for assessment. Conclusion: Cavity preparation using a Waterlase laser led to higher gap formation percentages at the dentin–resin interface. In addition, SEM assessment is more reliable for assessing the tooth–resin interface.

show abstract