Influence of cavity preparation with Er:YAG Laser on enamel adjacent to restorations submitted to cariogenic challenge in situ: a polarized light microscopic analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Er:YAG laser has been used for caries removal and cavity preparation, using ablative parameters. Its effect on the margins of restorations submitted to cariogenic challenge has not yet been sufficiently investigated. The aim of this study was to assess the enamel adjacent to restored Er:YAG laser-prepared cavities submitted to cariogenic challenge in situ, under polarized light microscopy. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-one enamel slabs were randomly assigned to seven groups (n = 13): I, II, III-Er:YAG laser with 250 mJ, 62.5 J/cm2, combined with 2, 3, and 4 Hz, respectively; IV, V, VI-Er:YAG laser with 350 mJ, 87.5 J/cm(2), combined with 2, 3, and 4 Hz, respectively; VII-High-speed handpiece (control). Cavities were restored and the restorations were polished. The slabs were fixed to intra-oral appliances, worn by 13 volunteers for 14 days. Sucrose solution was applied to each slab six times per day. Samples were removed, cleaned, sectioned and ground to polarized light microscopic analysis. Demineralized area and inhibition zone width were quantitatively assessed. Presence or absence of cracks was also analyzed. Scores for demineralization and inhibition zone were determined. RESULTS: No difference was found among the groups with regard to demineralized area, inhibition zone width, presence or absence of cracks, and demineralization score. Inhibition zone score showed difference among the groups. There was a correlation between the quantitative measures and the scores. CONCLUSION: Er:YAG laser was similar to high-speed handpiece, with regard to alterations in enamel adjacent to restorations submitted to cariogenic challenge in situ. The inhibition zone score might suggest less demineralization at the restoration margin of the irradiated substrates. Correlation between the quantitative measures and scores indicates that score was, in this case, a suitable complementary method for assessment of caries lesion around restorations, under polarized light microscopy.

Influence of Er:YAG laser on microhardness of enamel adjacent to restorations submitted to cariogenic challenge in situ.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the effect of the Er:YAG laser on enamel adjacent to restorations submitted to cariogenic challenge in situ, by microhardness analysis. BACKGROUND DATA: The influence of Er:YAG laser energy on secondary caries formation has been investigated in vitro. However, no research involving demineralization around cavities prepared with the Er:YAG laser under intra-oral conditions has yet been described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Slabs of enamel were randomly assigned to seven groups (n = 12), according to the cavity preparation technique: groups I, II, and III--Er:YAG laser, 250 mJ, at 2, 3, and 4 Hz, respectively; groups IV, V, and VI--350 mJ, at 2, 3, and 4 Hz, respectively; group VII--high-speed handpiece (control). Cavities were restored and the specimens were fixed in intra-oral appliances and worn by 12 volunteers for 14 d. Sucrose solution was applied to each slab 6 times/d. Samples were removed, sectioned, and examined for microhardness at 100, 200, and 300 microm (factor distance), and 30, 60, and 90 microm (factor depth), from the restoration and enamel surface, respectively. RESULTS: Analysis of variance according to a split-plot model showed no difference among the cavity preparation techniques, among distances, or among depths, as well as no difference in the interaction between the factors of cavity preparation and distance. A significant difference was found in the interaction of cavity preparation and depth (p < 0.0001), as identified by contrast technique. CONCLUSION: The results revealed that the Er:YAG laser did not differ from conventional cavity preparation with regard to enamel microhardness.

Influence of Er:YAG laser on cavity preparation and surface treatment in microleakage of composite resin restorations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess microleakage on class V cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser with varying surface treatment. BACKGROUND DATA: There has been little reported research on microleakage at cavities prepared and treated with Er:YAG laser. METHODS: Fifty preparations using Er:YAG laser or a highspeed handpiece were developed. The surface treatment was performed as follows: Er:YAG laser (group 1); 35% phosphoric acid (group 2); laser + acid (group 3); finishing with low-speed + laser + acid (group 4); conventional preparation developed with a high-speed handpiece + acid (group 5--control). The samples were restored with Single Bond/Z250, thermocycled, isolated, and immersed in a 50% AgNO(3) solution. The restorations were sectioned, and the microleakage was measured in milimeters using a specific computer software. Data were analyzed employing ANOVAand Tukey test. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed that group 5 (G5) obtained the lowest results of microleakage (22.05%), and it was statistically similar (p > 0.05) to G1 (37.7%) and different (p < 0.05) from the other groups (G2 = 50.4%; G3 = 43%; G4 = 44.2%). The occlusal margins (22.62%) demonstrated less microleakage (p < 0.05) than the cervical margins (56.32%). CONCLUSION: The use of Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation and surface treatment negatively influenced the marginal sealing of composite resin restorations.

Influence of the use of Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation and surface treatment in microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer restorations.

This study quantitatively assessed the amount of microleakage on Class V cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser and high-speed handpiece, varying the surface treatment and restoring with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Fifty cavities were prepared using either an Er:YAG laser device or a carbide bur at high speed. The surface treatment was performed as follows: Er:YAG laser irradiation (G1); 40% polyacrylic acid (G2); laser + acid (G3); finishing with low speed + laser + acid (G4); conventional bur preparation + acid (G5-control). The samples were restored with Fuji II LC, thermocycled, isolated and immersed in a 50% AgNO3 solution. The restorations were serially sectioned and the extent of dye penetration was measured in milimeters using specific computer software. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey test. The lowest degree of microleakage was observed for G5, which was statistically similar (p>0.05) to G4 but different (p<0.05) from all the other experiental groups. Lesser microleakage was observed at the occlusal margins than at the cervical margins (p<0.05). It may be concluded that the use of Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation and surface treatment negatively affected the marginal sealing of resin-modified glass ionomer restorations.

Comparative study of the dentin/adhesive systems interface after treatment with Er:YAG laser and acid etching using scanning electron microscope.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To assess dentin/adhesive systems interface after dentin conditioning with Er:YAG laser. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four dentin half-disks were assigned to 3 groups: All Bond 2 (AB); Optibond Solo Plus (OP); and Clearfil Liner Bond 2V (CL), which were divided into three sub-groups, according to dentin surface treatment: Er:YAG laser; Er:YAG laser plus acid; acid solely. After the adhesive protocol, specimens were embedded in resin, sectioned, and prepared for SEM analysis. Each area was examined under 1,500x magnification to assess the hybrid layer. RESULTS: Acid conditioning provided to AB and OP thick and homogeneous hybrid layer, as well as conical and uniform tags. The same pattern was observed for CL. In general, dentin treatment with laser, even when associated to acid, promoted irregular and thin hybrid layer, as well as scarce and thin tags. CONCLUSIONS: Er:YAG laser influenced the adhesive systems interface, hampering hybrid layer formation.

Effect of Er:YAG laser on bond strength to dentin of a self-etching primer and two single-bottle adhesive systems.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of erbium:yttrium aluminium garnet (Er:YAG) laser on bond strength to dentin of a self-etching primer (Clearfil Liner Bond 2V, CL2V) and two single-bottle agents (Excite, EX; Gluma One Bond, GB). STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty human molars were selected, roots were removed and crowns were bisected, providing 60 halves. Specimens were included and ground to expose dentin. Bonding site was limited and samples were assigned to three groups: I, CL2V; II, EX; III, GB. Dentin was either conventionally treated or submitted to laser conditioning + conventional treatment. The adhesive protocol was performed, samples were stored for 24 hours and bond strength was tested to failure (0.5 mm/min). RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed a decrease in bond strength for lased subgroups and this drop was more evident for EX. CL2V provided the best overall results, regardless of the surface treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Er:YAG laser may adversely affect bond strength in higher or lesser degree, depending on the adhesive system used.