Microleakage and scanning electron microscopy evaluation of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites prepared by erbium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser and bur

被引:0
作者
Yonca Korkmaz
Emre Ozel
Nuray Attar
Ceren Ozge Bicer
Erhan Firatli
机构
[1] Baskent University,Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry
[2] University of Kocaeli,Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry
[3] Hacettepe University,Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry
[4] University of Istanbul,Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry
来源
Lasers in Medical Science | 2010年 / 25卷
关键词
Er:YAG laser; Bur preparation; Microleakage; All-in-one self-etch adhesive;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites in class V cavities prepared by erbium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet (Er:YAG) laser and bur. Class V cavities were prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 72 premolars by Er:YAG laser or bur and divided into six groups (n = 24). The occlusal margins were enamel and the cervical margins were cementum. The groups were as follows: group 1 Er:YAG laser preparation (E) + Xeno V (X) + CeramX (C); group 2 bur preparation (B) + X + C; group 3 E + AdheSE One (A) + Tetric EvoCeram (T); group 4 B + A + T; group 5 E + Clearfil S3 Bond (CSB) + Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (CME); group 6 B + CSB + CME. All teeth were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 h, then thermocycled 500 times (5–55°C). Ten teeth from each group were chosen for the microleakage investigation and two teeth for the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation. The teeth that were prepared for the microleakage test were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. After immersion, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. Data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests (P < 0.05). Bur-prepared cavities presented less microleakage in all groups for enamel (P < 0.05); however, in cervical margins, there were no differences between laser-prepared and bur-prepared cavities in the Xeno V + CeramX and AdheSE One + Tetric EvoCeram groups (P > 0.05). SEM observations of restorative material–dentin interfaces seemed to correspond with those of the microleakage test. Microleakage at the cervical interfaces was greater than that at the occlusal interfaces. Er:YAG laser-prepared class V cavities yielded more microleakage in occlusal margins with all-in-one self-etch adhesives and the respective manufacturer’s nanocomposites.
引用
收藏
页码:493 / 502
页数:9
相关论文
共 202 条
[1]  
Mitra SB(2003)An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials J Am Dent Assoc 134 1382-1390
[2]  
Wu D(2003)Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges Oper Dent 28 215-235
[3]  
Holmes BN(2003)Total-etch versus self-etch adhesive. Effect on postoperative sensitivity J Am Dent Assoc 134 1621-1629
[4]  
Van Meerbeek B(2007)Effect of two light-emitting diode (LED) and one halogen curing light on the microleakage of class V flowable composite restorations J Contemp Dent Pract 8 80-88
[5]  
De Munck J(2002)Relationship between enamel etch characteristics and resin-enamel bond strength Br Dent J 192 463-468
[6]  
Yoshida Y(2001)Enamel and dentin bond strengths of single application bonding systems Am J Dent 14 361-366
[7]  
Inoue S(2003)Self-etching bonding agents Compend Contin Educ Dent 24 447-454
[8]  
Vargas M(2004)Influence of acid etching and enamel beveling on the 6-month clinical performance of a self-etch dentin adhesive Compend Contin Educ Dent 25 33-34
[9]  
Vijay P(2002)Preventing postoperative tooth sensitivity in class I, II and V restorations J Am Dent Assoc 133 229-231
[10]  
Van Landuyt K(1997)Current concepts on adhesion to dentin Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 8 306-335