Bond strength of bulk fill composite to teeth prepared with Er: YAG laser

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

Evaluation of mineral content of tooth enamel after application violet led associated with 35% hydrogen peroxide.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microhardness and quantify the presence of minerals (Calcium and Phosphorous) of tooth enamel submitted to bleaching with violet LED light, either associated with 35% hydrogen peroxide gel, or not. METHODS: Bovine incisors were selected and divided into 4 Groups according to the bleaching technique used: C- Without bleaching (Control); VL- violet LED; HP- 35% Hydrogen Peroxide; HP+VL- 35% Hydrogen Peroxide + violet LED. The response variables were surface microhardness (n = 12), Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) (n = 6) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (n = 3). RESULTS: The 2-way ANOVA test with repeated measures showed that there was difference in the microhardness values of enamel in the specimens in all of the Groups when the values measured in the initial and final time intervals were compared, however, without significant differences between the values of the different treatments in both time intervals. The results with reference to EDS were analyzed with the 1-way ANOVA test. There was difference among the Groups only in the Ca%, with Group HP obtaining the lowest values, with significant difference from those of the C Group. SEM images showed a smooth, homogeneous enamel surface and similarity among the Groups, irrespective of the treatment performed. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, it was concluded that the changes caused in enamel by the use of violet LED Light, either associated with 35% hydrogen peroxide, or not, did not differ from those of non-bleached tooth enamel, showing absence of harm to the mineral content of tooth enamel resulting from the use of violet LED.