PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate microleakage of cavity preparation in primary teeth made with an Er, Cr:YSGG laser (L) or high-speed drill (HD) and conventional (CGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). METHODS:One hundred primary teeth were divided into 10 groups (N=10): (a) groups 1 and 2 represented cavities prepared by a no. 1012 diamond bur with HD; (b) groups 3 through 10 represented cavities prepared with an Er, Cr:YSGG laser (with a repetition rate of 20 Hz power settings varying for enamel=2.5 W and 3 W and dentine=1.0 W and 1.5 W). After cavity preparation, samples were restored with CGIC (Ketac Molar Easy Mix) and RMGIC (Vitremer), impermeabilized, thermal cycled, stained, washed, and sectioned. The degree of dye penetration was scored by 3 standardized examiners using a light stereoscope at X30 magnification. RESULTS: The Kruskal-Wallis test detected no statistical differences between the cavity preparation methods (P<.049). Neither of the GICs tested were able to avoid microleakage, and the RMGIC showed the lowest statistical degree of microleakage compared with CGIC for both types of cavity preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The Er,Cr:YSGG laser provided an equivalent method of cavity preparation compared to the high-speed drill. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement showed the lowest degree of microleakage. This restorative material should be considered when choosing the cavity preparation method.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate microleakage of cavity preparation in primary teeth made with an Er, Cr:YSGG laser (L) or high-speed drill (HD) and conventional (CGIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). METHODS: One hundred primary teeth were divided into 10 groups (N=10): (a) groups 1 and 2 represented cavities prepared by a no. 1012 diamond bur with HD; (b) groups 3 through 10 represented cavities prepared with an Er, Cr:YSGG laser (with a repetition rate of 20 Hz power settings varying for enamel=2.5 W and 3 W and dentine=1.0 W and 1.5 W). After cavity preparation, samples were restored with CGIC (Ketac Molar Easy Mix) and RMGIC (Vitremer), impermeabilized, thermal cycled, stained, washed, and sectioned. The degree of dye penetration was scored by 3 standardized examiners using a light stereoscope at X30 magnification. RESULTS: The Kruskal-Wallis test detected no statistical differences between the cavity preparation methods (P<.049). Neither of the GICs tested were able to avoid microleakage, and the RMGIC showed the lowest statistical degree of microleakage compared with CGIC for both types of cavity preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The Er,Cr:YSGG laser provided an equivalent method of cavity preparation compared to the high-speed drill. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement showed the lowest degree of microleakage. This restorative material should be considered when choosing the cavity preparation method.