K Trelles1, J Arnabat2, T España-Tost3. 1. Trelles K, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Odontostomatology, University of Barcelona, Spain. 2. Arnabat J, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Odontostomatology, University of Barcelona, Spain. 3. España-Tost T, Department of Odontostomatology, University of Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyse microleakage in Class V cavity preparation with Er;Cr:YSGG at different parameters using a self-etching adhesive system. BACKGROUND: Several studies reported microleakage around composite restorations when cavity preparation is done or treated by Er;Cr:YSGG laser. We want to compare different energy densities in order to obtain the best parameters, when using a self-etching adhesive system. METHODS: A class V preparations was performed in 120 samples of human teeth were divided in 3 groups: (1) Preparation using the burr. (2) Er;Cr:YSGG laser preparation with high energy 4W, 30 Hz, 50% Water 50% Air and (3) Er;Cr:YSGG laser preparation lower energy 1.5 W, 30 Hz, 30% Water 30% Air. All the samples were restored with self-etching adhesive system and hybrid composite. Thermocycling (5000 cycles) and immersed in 0.5% fuchsin. The restorations were sectioned and evaluated the microleakage with a stereomicroscope. RESULTS: Lower energy laser used for preparation showed significant differences in enamel and dentin. To group 3, the microleakage in the enamel was less, whilst the group 1, treated with the turbine, showed less microleakage at dentin level. Group 2 showed the highest microleakage at dentin/cement level. CONCLUSION: Burr preparation gives the lowest microleakage at cement/dentin level, whilst Er;Cr:YSGG laser at lower power has the low energy obtains lowest microleakage at enamel. On the contrary high-energy settings produce inferior results in terms of microleakage.
OBJECTIVE: To analyse microleakage in Class V cavity preparation with Er;Cr:YSGG at different parameters using a self-etching adhesive system. BACKGROUND: Several studies reported microleakage around composite restorations when cavity preparation is done or treated by Er;Cr:YSGG laser. We want to compare different energy densities in order to obtain the best parameters, when using a self-etching adhesive system. METHODS: A class V preparations was performed in 120 samples of human teeth were divided in 3 groups: (1) Preparation using the burr. (2) Er;Cr:YSGG laser preparation with high energy 4W, 30 Hz, 50% Water 50% Air and (3) Er;Cr:YSGG laser preparation lower energy 1.5 W, 30 Hz, 30% Water 30% Air. All the samples were restored with self-etching adhesive system and hybrid composite. Thermocycling (5000 cycles) and immersed in 0.5% fuchsin. The restorations were sectioned and evaluated the microleakage with a stereomicroscope. RESULTS: Lower energy laser used for preparation showed significant differences in enamel and dentin. To group 3, the microleakage in the enamel was less, whilst the group 1, treated with the turbine, showed less microleakage at dentin level. Group 2 showed the highest microleakage at dentin/cement level. CONCLUSION: Burr preparation gives the lowest microleakage at cement/dentin level, whilst Er;Cr:YSGG laser at lower power has the low energy obtains lowest microleakage at enamel. On the contrary high-energy settings produce inferior results in terms of microleakage.
Entities:
Keywords:
Er,Cr:YSGG laser; Microleakage; adhesive systems; power of density; surface structure