Daniel Galafassi1, Camila Scatena2, Rodrigo Galo3, Fabiana Almeida Curylofo-Zotti4, Silmara Aparecida Milori Corona4, Maria Cristina Borsatto5. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Meridional College-IMED, Senador Pinheiro, 304, Cruzeiro, Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, RS, 99070-220, Brazil. 2. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Serra Gaucha College-FSG, Os Dezoito do Forte 2366, São Pelegrino, Caxias do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, RS, 95020-472, Brazil. 3. Dentistry Department, Federal University of Jequitinhonha and Mucuri Valleys, Diamantina, MG, Brazil. 4. Restorative Dentistry Department, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, São Paulo University, Café Avenue, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-904, Brazil. 5. Clinical Pediatric Dentistry Department, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, São Paulo University, Café Avenue, s/n, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-904, Brazil. borsatto@forp.usp.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate longitudinally the composite restorations, performed in cavities prepared by Er:YAG or conventional bur, and dentin re-wetting with water or chlorhexidine. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty individuals with four active caries with cavitation reaching the dentin located on the occlusal surface of molars counterparts are selected. The teeth of each individual were randomly assigned into four groups: (I) Er:YAG laser (260 mJ/4 Hz) re-wetting with chlorhexidine, (II) Er:YAG laser (260 mJ/4 Hz) re-wetting with deionized water, (III) conventional method re-wetting with chlorhexidine, and (IV) conventional method re-wetting with deionized water. The teeth were isolated, prepared cavities, phosphoric acid etching, and re-wetting according to previously assigned method. Restoration was performed employing the Single Bond 2 and Z350XT resin. Clinical follow-up was held after the polishing of the restoration (baseline) and 6 and 12 months of the making of the restoration using the modified USPHS criteria. The restorations were qualitatively analyzed by means of photographs. In the evaluation period, replicas of the restorations were analyzed by SEM. Data were analyzed by statistics using chi-square test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: After 12 months of clinical evaluation, groups prepared with laser and re-wetting with chlorhexidine and water showed the lowest marginal staining value. There was no statistical difference between the groups for other factors. SEM analysis revealed that a non-expressive amount of restorations showed gaps and irregularities of tooth-restoration interface after 6 and 12 months compared to the baseline. CONCLUSION: The restorations performed in laser-prepared cavities, regardless of the re-wetting, presented the best clinical performance over the evaluated period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Laser-prepared teeth, regardless of re-wetting, showed greater resistance to marginal discoloration.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate longitudinally the composite restorations, performed in cavities prepared by Er:YAG or conventional bur, and dentin re-wetting with water or chlorhexidine. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty individuals with four active caries with cavitation reaching the dentin located on the occlusal surface of molars counterparts are selected. The teeth of each individual were randomly assigned into four groups: (I) Er:YAG laser (260 mJ/4 Hz) re-wetting with chlorhexidine, (II) Er:YAG laser (260 mJ/4 Hz) re-wetting with deionized water, (III) conventional method re-wetting with chlorhexidine, and (IV) conventional method re-wetting with deionized water. The teeth were isolated, prepared cavities, phosphoric acid etching, and re-wetting according to previously assigned method. Restoration was performed employing the Single Bond 2 and Z350XT resin. Clinical follow-up was held after the polishing of the restoration (baseline) and 6 and 12 months of the making of the restoration using the modified USPHS criteria. The restorations were qualitatively analyzed by means of photographs. In the evaluation period, replicas of the restorations were analyzed by SEM. Data were analyzed by statistics using chi-square test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: After 12 months of clinical evaluation, groups prepared with laser and re-wetting with chlorhexidine and water showed the lowest marginal staining value. There was no statistical difference between the groups for other factors. SEM analysis revealed that a non-expressive amount of restorations showed gaps and irregularities of tooth-restoration interface after 6 and 12 months compared to the baseline. CONCLUSION: The restorations performed in laser-prepared cavities, regardless of the re-wetting, presented the best clinical performance over the evaluated period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Laser-prepared teeth, regardless of re-wetting, showed greater resistance to marginal discoloration.
Authors: Markus Heyder; Bernd Sigusch; Christoph Hoder-Przyrembel; Juliane Schuetze; Stefan Kranz; Markus Reise Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Maria Francesca Sfondrini; Marina Vitale; Antonio Luiz Barbosa Pinheiro; Paola Gandini; Lorenzo Sorrentino; Ugo Matteo Iarussi; Andrea Scribante Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 3.411