BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of Er:YAG laser on enamel acid resistance. STUDY DESIGN/ MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy human enamel slabs were randomly divided into seven groups (n = 10): G1, Er:YAG laser (Key Laser 2, KaVo, Germany) 60 mJ, 2 Hz, 33.3 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2051, non-contact); G2, Er:YAG laser 80 mJ, 2 Hz, 44.4 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2051, non-contact); G3, Er:YAG laser 120 mJ, 2 Hz, 66.6 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2051, non-contact); G4, Er:YAG laser 64 mJ, 2 Hz, 20 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2055, contact); G5, Er:YAG laser 86.4 mJ, 2 Hz, 26.9 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2055, contact); G6, Er:YAG laser 135 mJ, 2 Hz, 42.2 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2055, contact); G7, control. After laser irradiation, samples were submitted to an acid challenge. For both the nos. 2051 and 2055 handpieces, irradiation was performed with a water cooled spray (5.0 ml/minutes). The calcium and phosphorous ions delivered from the tooth surface were quantified by atomic emission spectrometry, and morphological analysis of the enamel surface was performed under scanning electron microscopy. Kruskal-Wallis and multiple comparisons tests were applied to distinguish significant differences among the treatments (alpha = 5%). RESULTS: Groups G1, G2, and G4 presented decreased demineralization. The SEM evaluation revealed different surface alterations as a result of the different energies used. CONCLUSION: Lower energies can decrease enamel solubility without severe alterations of the enamel. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of Er:YAG laser on enamel acid resistance. STUDY DESIGN/ MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy human enamel slabs were randomly divided into seven groups (n = 10): G1, Er:YAG laser (Key Laser 2, KaVo, Germany) 60 mJ, 2 Hz, 33.3 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2051, non-contact); G2, Er:YAG laser 80 mJ, 2 Hz, 44.4 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2051, non-contact); G3, Er:YAG laser 120 mJ, 2 Hz, 66.6 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2051, non-contact); G4, Er:YAG laser 64 mJ, 2 Hz, 20 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2055, contact); G5, Er:YAG laser 86.4 mJ, 2 Hz, 26.9 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2055, contact); G6, Er:YAG laser 135 mJ, 2 Hz, 42.2 J/cm2 (handpiece no. 2055, contact); G7, control. After laser irradiation, samples were submitted to an acid challenge. For both the nos. 2051 and 2055 handpieces, irradiation was performed with a water cooled spray (5.0 ml/minutes). The calcium and phosphorous ions delivered from the tooth surface were quantified by atomic emission spectrometry, and morphological analysis of the enamel surface was performed under scanning electron microscopy. Kruskal-Wallis and multiple comparisons tests were applied to distinguish significant differences among the treatments (alpha = 5%). RESULTS: Groups G1, G2, and G4 presented decreased demineralization. The SEM evaluation revealed different surface alterations as a result of the different energies used. CONCLUSION: Lower energies can decrease enamel solubility without severe alterations of the enamel. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc
Authors: Sérgio Brossi Botta; Patricia Aparecida da Ana; Denise Maria Zezell; John M Powers; Adriana Bona Matos Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2007-11-20 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: R S Scatolin; V Colucci; T P Lepri; A K Alexandria; L C Maia; R Galo; M C Borsatto; S A M Corona Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Nai-Yuan N Chang; Jamison M Jew; Jacob C Simon; Kenneth H Chen; Robert C Lee; William A Fried; Jinny Cho; Cynthia L Darling; Daniel Fried Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Flávia M Bevilácqua; Denise Maria Zezell; Romeu Magnani; Patricia A da Ana; Carlos de Paula Eduardo Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 3.161