The effects of cavity disinfection on the nanoleakage of compomer restorations: an in vitro study

Abstract

PurposeCavity disinfection, in addition to routine caries removal methods, is recommended to eliminate the microorganisms. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of various systems Er,Cr:YSGG lasers, diode lasers and FotoSan and agents Corsodyl; Cervitec and Cervitec Plus and Fluor Protector-on the nanoleakage of compomer restorations when used for cavity disinfection. Materials and MethodsA total of 40 intact human deciduous molar teeth containing Black V cavities (3×2×1.5 mm) on the buccal and lingual surfaces parallel to the cementoenamel junction were randomly divided into 8 groups according to the cavity disinfection methods. The antibacterial agents and systems were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were completed using a compomer. The restored teeth were then subjected to thermocycling for 500 cycles in a water bath at 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 30 seconds. After the thermocycling procedures, 1-mm sticks were obtained from the center of each cavity to prepare for the nanoleakage test. After the teeth were sectioned, they were immersed in 50 wt % ammoniacal silver nitrate solution for 24 hours and dipped in photo-developing solutions for 8 hours with fluorescent light irradiation. The samples were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test (p<0.05) were applied. ResultsThe Er,Cr:YSGG laser group showed significantly less nanoleakage than all of the tested groups (p<0.01). The diode laser, Fluor protector and FotoSan groups showed similar nanoleakage to that of the control group (p>0.05). The Corsodyl (p<0.01) and Cervitec (p<0.001) groups showed significantly higher nanoleakage than the control group. ConclusionEr,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation which showed lower nanoleakage scores from either control or tested groups can be recommended for cavity disinfection Additionally, a diode laser and FotoSan, which have antibacterial effects and no negative effect on leakage, can be used for cavity disinfection.

Demographic Assessment of Laser Therapies in 0–18-year-olds: A Retrospective Study

“…Cavity disinfection, when conducted with the help of a laser, decreases bacterial load and increases bond strength. 12,13 In the present study, 217 cavity disinfection procedures were done, which showed a success rate of 100% with no secondary caries. A study conducted by Mohan et al, 14 showed similar results in which cavity disinfection efficacy of acidulated phosphate fluoride gel, propolis, diode laser, and 2% chlorhexidine for Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacilli were evaluated, and it was concluded that diode laser is most effective against microorganisms because of the greater depth of penetration of laser radiation of about 1 mm into the dentin, surpassing the effective range of chemical disinfectants.…”

SEM Studies Assessing the Efficacy of Laser Treatment for Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review

“…This systematic review includes studies evaluating the effectiveness of laser treatment of primary teeth in which researchers analyzed data using SEM. Thirteen articles [2,13,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] assessed the influence of the Er:YAG laser, six [15,[27][28][29][30][31] assessed the Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and five [32][33][34][35][36] assessed the Nd:YAG laser. Two of the articles [22,23] analyzed SEM images of both enamel and dentin, twelve [2,13,16,17,20,21,24,26,27,30,35,36] analyzed dentin images only, and ten [15,18,19,25,28,29,[31][32][33][34] solely images of the enamel surface.…”

“…Thirteen articles [2,13,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] assessed the influence of the Er:YAG laser, six [15,[27][28][29][30][31] assessed the Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and five [32][33][34][35][36] assessed the Nd:YAG laser. Two of the articles [22,23] analyzed SEM images of both enamel and dentin, twelve [2,13,16,17,20,21,24,26,27,30,35,36] analyzed dentin images only, and ten [15,18,19,25,28,29,[31][32][33][34] solely images of the enamel surface. Among other assessed parameters were shear bond strength in six articles [17,<...…”

“…Two of the articles [22,23] analyzed SEM images of both enamel and dentin, twelve [2,13,16,17,20,21,24,26,27,30,35,36] analyzed dentin images only, and ten [15,18,19,25,28,29,[31][32][33][34] solely images of the enamel surface. Among other assessed parameters were shear bond strength in six articles [17,21,[23][24][25]36] and microleakage in three articles [13,27,31]. Two articles each examined hybrid layer thickness [27,30], remineralization of enamel [28,33], and thermal effects on the pulp [22,29].…”

“…Treating the enamel surface with Nd:YAG [32][33][34][35][36], Er,Cr:YSGG [15,28,29,31], or Er:YAG [18,19,22,23,25] lasers results in a rough, irregular surface, cracks, craters, and ablation areas in the tissue. This is supported by the findings of Ulusoy et al [15], Yilmaz et al [28], Almaz et al [29], Asl-Aminabadi et al [33], Kahvecioglu et al [18], Teutle-Coyotecatl et al [19], Al-Batayneh et al [22], Memarpour et al [23], Banda et al [34], Wanderley et al [25], and Arslan et al [31]. According to Wanderley et al [25], the irregularity of the enamel surface increases with higher frequency and energy settings in used lasers.…”