Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative study between laser and conventional techniques for class V cavity preparation in gamma-irradiated teeth (in vitro study)
Rasmy, Amr HM; Harhash, Tarek A; Ghali, Rami MS; El Maghraby, Eman MF; El Rouby, Dalia H.
  • Rasmy, Amr HM; Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority. National Centre for Radiation Research and Technology (NCRRT). Health Radiation Research Department. Cairo. EG
  • Harhash, Tarek A; Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority. National Centre for Radiation Research and Technology (NCRRT). Health Radiation Research Department. Cairo. EG
  • Ghali, Rami MS; Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority. National Centre for Radiation Research and Technology (NCRRT). Health Radiation Research Department. Cairo. EG
  • El Maghraby, Eman MF; Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority. National Centre for Radiation Research and Technology (NCRRT). Health Radiation Research Department. Cairo. EG
  • El Rouby, Dalia H; Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority. National Centre for Radiation Research and Technology (NCRRT). Health Radiation Research Department. Cairo. EG
J. appl. oral sci ; 25(6): 657-665, Nov.-Dec. 2017. tab, graf
Article in English | LILACS, BBO | ID: biblio-893675
ABSTRACT
Abstract

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to compare laser with conventional techniques in class V cavity preparation in gamma-irradiated teeth.

Methods:

Forty extracted human teeth with no carious lesions were used for this study and were divided into two main groups Group I (n = 20) was not subjected to gamma radiation (control) and Group II (n=20) was subjected to gamma radiation of 60 Gray. Standard class V preparation was performed in buccal and lingual sides of each tooth in both groups. Buccal surfaces were prepared by the Er,CrYSGG laser (Waterlase iPlus) 2780 nm, using the gold handpiece with MZ10 Tip in non-contact and the "H" mode, following parameters of cavity preparation - power 6 W, frequency 50 Hz, 90% water and 70% air, then shifting to surface treatment laser parameters - power 4.5 W, frequency 50 Hz, 80% water and 50% air. Lingual surfaces were prepared by the conventional high-speed turbine using round diamond bur. Teeth were then sectioned mesio-distally, resulting in 80 specimens 40 of which were buccal laser-treated (20 control and 20 gamma-irradiated specimens) and 40 were lingual conventional high-speed bur specimens (20 control and 20 gamma-irradiated specimens).

Results:

Microleakage analysis revealed higher scores in both gamma groups compared with control groups. Chi-square test revealed no significant difference between both control groups and gamma groups (p=1, 0.819, respectively). A significant difference was revealed between all 4 groups (p=0.00018).

Conclusion:

Both laser and conventional high-speed turbine bur show good bond strength in control (non-gamma) group, while microleakage is evident in gamma group, indicating that gamma radiation had a dramatic negative effect on the bond strength in both laser and bur-treated teeth.
Subject(s)


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Dental Caries / Dental Cavity Preparation / Dental Leakage / Gamma Rays Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J. appl. oral sci Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2017 Type: Article Affiliation country: Egypt Institution/Affiliation country: Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority/EG

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Index: LILACS (Americas) Main subject: Dental Caries / Dental Cavity Preparation / Dental Leakage / Gamma Rays Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: J. appl. oral sci Journal subject: Dentistry Year: 2017 Type: Article Affiliation country: Egypt Institution/Affiliation country: Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority/EG