PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the influence of Er:YAG laser on the shear bond strength of three different adhesives to lased dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Seventy specimens obtained from 35 extracted human molars were embedded in polyester resin and ground with silicon carbide papers. The samples were divided into seven groups. 1. Er:YAG laser (Key Laser 3, KaVo) + Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray); 2. Er:YAG laser + Clearfil tri-S Bond (Kuraray); 3. Er:YAG laser + 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2 (3M-ESPE); 4. Er:YAG laser + Single Bond 2; 5. conventional method + Clearfil Protect Bond; 6. conventional method + Clearfil tri-S Bond; 7. conventional method + 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2. The samples were subjected to shear bond testing 24 h after bonding. Statistical analyses were carried out by two-way ANOVA, t-test, one-way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey's and Dunnett C test (p = 0.05). RESULTS: Only the Er:YAG laser + Clearfil tri-S Bond group demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths vs conventionally prepared specimens (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the shear bond strengths of Single Bond 2 adhesive applied to laser- vs bur-treated specimens (p > 0.05). In laser prepared samples, Clearfil Protect Bond showed the highest scores (p < 0.05), whereas in conventionally prepared groups, no statistical differences were observed between Clearfil Protect Bond and Clearfil tri-S Bond (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION:Er:YAG laser irradiation did not adversely affect the shear bond strength of Single Bond 2 and Clearfil Protect Bond to dentin, whereas it increased the shear bond strength values of Clearfil tri-S Bond.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine the influence of Er:YAG laser on the shear bond strength of three different adhesives to lased dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy specimens obtained from 35 extracted human molars were embedded in polyester resin and ground with silicon carbide papers. The samples were divided into seven groups. 1. Er:YAG laser (Key Laser 3, KaVo) + Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray); 2. Er:YAG laser + Clearfil tri-S Bond (Kuraray); 3. Er:YAG laser + 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2 (3M-ESPE); 4. Er:YAG laser + Single Bond 2; 5. conventional method + Clearfil Protect Bond; 6. conventional method + Clearfil tri-S Bond; 7. conventional method + 37% H3PO4 + Single Bond 2. The samples were subjected to shear bond testing 24 h after bonding. Statistical analyses were carried out by two-way ANOVA, t-test, one-way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey's and Dunnett C test (p = 0.05). RESULTS: Only the Er:YAG laser + Clearfil tri-S Bond group demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths vs conventionally prepared specimens (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the shear bond strengths of Single Bond 2 adhesive applied to laser- vs bur-treated specimens (p > 0.05). In laser prepared samples, Clearfil Protect Bond showed the highest scores (p < 0.05), whereas in conventionally prepared groups, no statistical differences were observed between Clearfil Protect Bond and Clearfil tri-S Bond (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Er:YAG laser irradiation did not adversely affect the shear bond strength of Single Bond 2 and Clearfil Protect Bond to dentin, whereas it increased the shear bond strength values of Clearfil tri-S Bond.
Authors: Barbara Cvikl; Bledar Lilaj; Alexander Franz; Daniela Degendorfer; Andreas Moritz Journal: Photomed Laser Surg Date: 2015-09-21 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: A Rüya Yazici; Ishita Agarwal; Marc Campillo-Funollet; Carlos Munoz-Viveros; Sibel A Antonson; Donald E Antonson; Thomas Mang Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 3.161