Mansore Mirzaei1, Esmaeil Yasini1, Atefeh Tavakoli2, Nasim Chiniforush3. 1. Operative Dentistry Department, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Laser Research Center of Dentistry, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medial Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare microhybride composite treated by bur and different power of Erbium, Chromium doped Yttrium Scandium Gallium Garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). METHODS: 21 microhybride composite blocks (DiaFil TM, DiaDent, Korea) with 2 × 4 × 4 mm dimensions were made. The bonding surface of these blocks were polished, The samples were put into 6 groups for laser irradiation as follows: Group 1 (power: 1W, Energy: 50 mJ); Group 2(power: 2 W, Energy: 100mJ); Group 3 (power: 3W, Energy: 150mJ); Group 4 (power: 4W, Energy: 200mJ); Group 5 (power: 5W, Energy: 250mJ) and Group 6(power:6 W, Energy:300mJ). One group prepared by bur- treated. All samples were prepared by repetition rate of 20 Hz. Then, the samples were prepared for SEM examination. RESULT: Some irregularities were seen in Er,Cr:YSGG laser samples in comparison to Bur group that produced favorable surface for adhesion of repair composite. CONCLUSION: Among different lasers, Er;Cr:YSGG laser can be chosen as a suitable technique for surface treatment of unsatisfactory composites.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare microhybride composite treated by bur and different power of Erbium, Chromium doped Yttrium Scandium Gallium Garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). METHODS: 21 microhybride composite blocks (DiaFil TM, DiaDent, Korea) with 2 × 4 × 4 mm dimensions were made. The bonding surface of these blocks were polished, The samples were put into 6 groups for laser irradiation as follows: Group 1 (power: 1W, Energy: 50 mJ); Group 2(power: 2 W, Energy: 100mJ); Group 3 (power: 3W, Energy: 150mJ); Group 4 (power: 4W, Energy: 200mJ); Group 5 (power: 5W, Energy: 250mJ) and Group 6(power:6 W, Energy:300mJ). One group prepared by bur- treated. All samples were prepared by repetition rate of 20 Hz. Then, the samples were prepared for SEM examination. RESULT: Some irregularities were seen in Er,Cr:YSGG laser samples in comparison to Bur group that produced favorable surface for adhesion of repair composite. CONCLUSION: Among different lasers, Er;Cr:YSGG laser can be chosen as a suitable technique for surface treatment of unsatisfactory composites.
Authors: Amir Hossein Mirhashemi; Nasim Chiniforush; Nastaran Sharifi; Amir Mehdi Hosseini Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 3.161