| Literature DB >> 29416849 |
Jihad Zeitouni1, Bret Clough2, Suzanne Zeitouni3, Mohammed Saleem1, Kenan Al Aisami4, Carl Gregory3.
Abstract
Background: The use of lasers has become increasingly common in the field of medicine and dentistry, and there is a growing need for a deeper understanding of the procedure and its effects on tissue. The aim of this study was to compare the erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Er:YAG) laser and conventional drilling techniques, by observing the effects on trabecular bone microarchitecture and the extent of thermal and mechanical damage.Entities:
Keywords: Er:YAG laser; dental drilling; micro-computed tomography
Year: 2017 PMID: 29416849 PMCID: PMC5782408 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.12018.1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: F1000Res ISSN: 2046-1402
Laser parameters for condition 1.
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Lambda |
| 2.5 |
| 250 |
|
| Pluser |
| 250 |
| 2.5 |
|
|
| 75 |
| 3.333
| |
|
| 2940 |
| 10 |
| 0.0050 |
|
| Sapphire
|
| 800 |
| 0.1362 |
|
| Free
|
| 2 |
| 0.0146 |
|
| Gaussian |
| 8 |
| 228,734 |
|
| none |
| 24 |
| 172 |
|
| none |
| none |
| 367 |
|
| 2100 |
| 5250 | ||
Laser parameters for condition 3.
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Lambda |
| 6 |
| 400 |
|
| Pluser |
| 400 |
| 6 |
|
|
| 75 |
| 5.333 | |
|
| 2940 |
| 15 |
| 0.0050 |
|
| Sapphire
|
| 800 |
| 0.1362 |
|
| Free
|
| 2 |
| 0.0146 |
|
| Gaussian |
| 8 |
| 365,975 |
|
| none |
| 24 |
| 412 |
|
| none |
| none |
| 881 |
|
| 240 |
| 1440 | ||
Figure 1. a) The ROI plotted on each of the 10 axial sections encompasses a 0.4 – 0.5 mm margin around the circumference of each hole. b) Measurements are taken on every 10 th section from the surface of the hole to a depth of 2 mm, resulting in 10 values. c) Negative (uncut) control demonstrating distinct trabecular architecture. d) Left panel: demonstrating a dense layer along the circumference of the hole caused by thermal damage due to friction (arrowed). Right panel: magnified image illustrating a dense compacted layer (arrowed). e) Left panel: hole cut with conventional dental drill, with similar dense layer. Right panel: magnified image illustrating a compacted layer (arrowed). f) Left panel: hole cut with laser at 2.5 Watts, demonstrating undamaged trabecular structures at the circumference of the hole. Right panel: magnified image. g) Laser condition 2 (6 Watts). h) Laser condition 3, (8 Watts).
Figure 2. a) Plot of porosity measurements with statistical analyses. Values represent mean porosity for the 10 measured sections per sample with error bars representing standard deviations (n=10). Statistics are one-sided ANOVA with Dunnett’s post-test. Asterisks refer to comparison with abrasive bit (p<0.005=***, p<0.05=*). Crosses refer to comparison with negative (uncut) control (p<0.01=++). Panels b– g represent trichrome stained 10 mm sections of cut margins. b) Uncut control bone. c– d) Bone cut with abrasive bit and dental drill respectively, demonstrating areas of destroyed trabecular bone with severe carbonization (arrowed). e– g) Bone cut with laser parameters 1–3 respectively, demonstrating a lack of trabecular compaction and clean margins. h) 100× original magnification of charred cell mass (arrowed) present extensively in dental drill and abrasive bit. i) 60× original magnification of sporadic areas of slight carbonization that occurs with the laser.
Laser parameters for condition 2.
| Intrinsic Parameters | Adjustable Parameters | Calculated Parameters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Lambda |
| 8 |
| 400 |
|
| Pluser |
| 400 |
| 8 |
|
|
| 75 |
| 5.333 | |
|
| 2940 |
| 20 |
| 0.0050 |
|
| Sapphire
|
| 800 |
| 0.1362 |
|
| Free
|
| 2 |
| 0.0146 |
|
| Gaussian |
| 8 |
| 365.975 |
|
| none |
| 24 |
| 549 |
|
| none |
| none |
| 1175 |
|
| 3600 |
| 2880 | ||