| Literature DB >> 32292465 |
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the influence of Er, Cr: YSGG laser (ECL) and fractional carbon dioxide laser (FCL) on the shear bond strength (SBS) and microleakage of bioactive restorative material to dentin.Entities:
Keywords: Bioactive material; Dentin bonding; Er-Cr-YSGG laser; Fractional carbon dioxide laser; Microleakage
Year: 2020 PMID: 32292465 PMCID: PMC7150372 DOI: 10.12669/pjms.36.3.1819
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pak J Med Sci ISSN: 1681-715X Impact factor: 1.088
Descriptive statistics of SBS in MPa among experimental groups using ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons test.
| Surface conditioning/ Type of bulk fill material | Mean (MPa) ± SD (MPa) | p value! |
|---|---|---|
| TE-BFR | 19.21 ± 0.925 | <0.001 |
| TE-BAM | 17.24 ± 1.123 | |
| ECL-BFR | 16.13 ± 3.012 | |
| ECL-BAM | 16.25 ± 2.102 | |
| FCL-BFR | 11.06 ± 1.611 | |
| FCL-BAM | 13.45 ± 2.459 |
TE: Total Etch, BFR: Tetric-N-Ceram, FCL: Fractional carbon dioxide laser,
ECL: Er, Cr: YSGG, BAM: Bioactive material.
The highest and lowest SBS values are in bold
Significantly different from groups- FCL-BFR, FCL-BAM (p <0.05)
Significantly different from groups- TE-BFR, TE-BAM, ECL-BFR, ECL-BAM
(Tukey multiple comparison test)
! Showing significant difference among study group (ANOVA).
Descriptive statistics of microleakage scores among study groups using ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons test.
| Surface conditioning/ Nature of bulk fill material | Mean (nm) | SD (nm) | P value! |
|---|---|---|---|
| TE-BFR | 28.11 | 13.657 | <0.001 |
| TE-BAM | 37.55 | 12.551 | |
| ECL-BFR | 24.11 | 13.011 | |
| ECL-BAM | 41.08 | 14.784 | |
| FCL-BFR | 33.98 | 14.855 | |
| FCL-BAM | 42.18 | 16.325 |
TE: Total Etch, BFR: Tetric-N-Ceram, FCL: Fractional carbon dioxide laser,
ECL: Er, Cr: YSGG, BAM: Bioactive material, The highest and lowest microleakage values are in bold
Significantly different from groups TE-BFR, ECL-BFR, FCL-BFR (p <0.05)
Significantly different from groups- TE-BAM, ECL-BAM, FCL-BAM (p <0.05)
(Tukey multiple comparison test)
! Showing significant difference among study group (ANOVA).
Modes of failure among different experimental groups.
| Experimental groups | Adhesive (%) | Cohesive (%) | Admixed (%) | n = 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TE-BFR (Control) | 25 | 55 | 20 | 10 |
| TE-BAM (Control) | 10 | 67 | 23 | 10 |
| ECL-BFR | 10 | 30 | 60 | 10 |
| ECL-BAM | 10 | 20 | 70 | 10 |
| FCL-BFR | 65 | 15 | 20 | 10 |
| FCL-BAM | 70 | 10 | 20 | 10 |