Rodrigo Alexandre Valério1, Rodrigo Galo2, Daniel Galafassi3, Silmara Aparecida Milori Corona4, Maria Cristina Borsatto5. 1. Clinical Pediatric Dentistry Department, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry / São Paulo University, Café Avenue, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-904, Brazil. 2. Department of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Vale do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (UFVJM), Rodovia MGT 367 - Km 583, n° 5000 Alto da Jacuba, Diamantina, Minas Gerais, 39100-000, Brazil. 3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Meridional College-IMED, Senador Pinheiro, 304, Cruzeiro, Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, 99070-220, 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, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-904, Brazil. borsatto@forp.usp.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to longitudinally evaluate, after a 4-year period, the clinical longevity of composite resin restoration compared to the baseline, after selective caries removal in permanent molars using Er:YAG laser or bur preparation with biomodification of dentin with the use of chlorhexidine. METHODS: Selective caries removal was performed on 80 teeth of 20 individuals who each had at least four active carious lesions. These lesions, located on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar counterparts, were removed using (i) Er:YAG laser biomodified with chlorhexidine, (ii) Er:YAG laser and application of deionized water, (iii) bur preparation biomodified with chlorhexidine, and (iv) bur preparation and application of deionized water. At the end of 4 years, 64 of the 80 restorations were evaluated in 16 individuals (n = 16). The restorations were evaluated, both clinically and photographically, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and pulp vitality analysis. The experimental data were statistically evaluated by kappa, Fisher's, and chi-square tests, with a significance level of 5%. The Kaplan-Meier test and the Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate the survival of the restorations. RESULTS: After 4 years of follow-up, there was a statistically significant difference in marginal discoloration criteria for all of the groups evaluated. For marginal adaptation criteria, there was a statistically significant difference for the Er:YAG laser group biomodified with chlorhexine (p = 0.050). For clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulp vitality, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (p = 0.806). CONCLUSION: Er:YAG laser can be used for selective caries removal, regardless of dentin biomodification with chlorhexidine or application of deionized water, once it produced promising results in composite resin restorations after 4 years of follow-up, according to the criteria evaluated. The selective caries removal using Er:YAG laser or bur and the biomodification of dentin with the use of chlorhexidine did not influence the survival of composite resin restorations after the 4-year follow-up period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Composite resin restorations applied after selective caries removal using Er:YAG laser or burs, regardless of dentin biomodification with the use of chlorhexidine or application of deionized water, showed adequate clinical behavior after 4 years of follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to longitudinally evaluate, after a 4-year period, the clinical longevity of composite resin restoration compared to the baseline, after selective caries removal in permanent molars using Er:YAG laser or bur preparation with biomodification of dentin with the use of chlorhexidine. METHODS: Selective caries removal was performed on 80 teeth of 20 individuals who each had at least four active carious lesions. These lesions, located on occlusal surfaces of permanent molar counterparts, were removed using (i) Er:YAG laser biomodified with chlorhexidine, (ii) Er:YAG laser and application of deionized water, (iii) bur preparation biomodified with chlorhexidine, and (iv) bur preparation and application of deionized water. At the end of 4 years, 64 of the 80 restorations were evaluated in 16 individuals (n = 16). The restorations were evaluated, both clinically and photographically, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and pulp vitality analysis. The experimental data were statistically evaluated by kappa, Fisher's, and chi-square tests, with a significance level of 5%. The Kaplan-Meier test and the Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate the survival of the restorations. RESULTS: After 4 years of follow-up, there was a statistically significant difference in marginal discoloration criteria for all of the groups evaluated. For marginal adaptation criteria, there was a statistically significant difference for the Er:YAG laser group biomodified with chlorhexine (p = 0.050). For clinical and radiographic evaluation of pulp vitality, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (p = 0.806). CONCLUSION: Er:YAG laser can be used for selective caries removal, regardless of dentin biomodification with chlorhexidine or application of deionized water, once it produced promising results in composite resin restorations after 4 years of follow-up, according to the criteria evaluated. The selective caries removal using Er:YAG laser or bur and the biomodification of dentin with the use of chlorhexidine did not influence the survival of composite resin restorations after the 4-year follow-up period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Composite resin restorations applied after selective caries removal using Er:YAG laser or burs, regardless of dentin biomodification with the use of chlorhexidine or application of deionized water, showed adequate clinical behavior after 4 years of follow-up.