A. Comba, A. Baldi, Riccardo Michelotto Tempesta, Aristea Cedrone, Giorgia Carpegna, A. Mazzoni, L. Breschi, M. Alovisi, D. Pasqualini, N. Scotti
{"title":"Effect of Er:YAG and Burs on Coronal Dentin Bond Strength Stability.","authors":"A. Comba, A. Baldi, Riccardo Michelotto Tempesta, Aristea Cedrone, Giorgia Carpegna, A. Mazzoni, L. Breschi, M. Alovisi, D. Pasqualini, N. Scotti","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.a42932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE To evaluate the immediate and aged bond strength and interfacial nanolaekage of different adhesives and protocols on dental elements prepared with diamond burs and Er:YAG laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty molar crowns were flattened and a standardized smear layer was created. Teeth were divided into two main groups according to the dentin cutting technique: 1. Er:YAG laser for 30 s at 30 Hz repetition rate, 250 mJ energy per pulse, and water spray irrigation set at level 8; and 2. diamond bur. Each group was then divided into subgroups according to the adhesive protocol: SG1: dentin etching for 15 s followed by universal adhesive application (All Bond Universal, Bisco); SG2: universal adhesive application (All Bond Universal); SG3: two-step self-etch adhesive application (Clearfil SE Bond 2, Kuraray Noritake); SG4: etching followed by 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive application (Optibond FL, Kerr). After curing the adhesives, resin composite buildups of 4 mm were made and specimens were sectioned to obtain 1-mm-thick sticks in accordance with the μTBS test technique. Sticks were stressed to failure at baseline and after 6 months of storage in artificial saliva. Three teeth per group were prepared for nanoleakage interfacial analyses. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (p < 0.05). RESULTS A significant difference in bond strengths was found for treatment, aging, and adhesive protocol. Nanoleakage analysis showed higher marginal infiltration in Er:YAG-treated groups both at baseline and after aging. CONCLUSIONS Surfaces prepared with diamond burs presented higher bond strengths than did those prepared with Er:YAG laser. Adhesive protocols and aging could influence the adhesive-dentin interface. Further studies are necessary to validate the results obtained.","PeriodicalId":94234,"journal":{"name":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","volume":"21 1","pages":"329-335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a42932","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the immediate and aged bond strength and interfacial nanolaekage of different adhesives and protocols on dental elements prepared with diamond burs and Er:YAG laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty molar crowns were flattened and a standardized smear layer was created. Teeth were divided into two main groups according to the dentin cutting technique: 1. Er:YAG laser for 30 s at 30 Hz repetition rate, 250 mJ energy per pulse, and water spray irrigation set at level 8; and 2. diamond bur. Each group was then divided into subgroups according to the adhesive protocol: SG1: dentin etching for 15 s followed by universal adhesive application (All Bond Universal, Bisco); SG2: universal adhesive application (All Bond Universal); SG3: two-step self-etch adhesive application (Clearfil SE Bond 2, Kuraray Noritake); SG4: etching followed by 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive application (Optibond FL, Kerr). After curing the adhesives, resin composite buildups of 4 mm were made and specimens were sectioned to obtain 1-mm-thick sticks in accordance with the μTBS test technique. Sticks were stressed to failure at baseline and after 6 months of storage in artificial saliva. Three teeth per group were prepared for nanoleakage interfacial analyses. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (p < 0.05). RESULTS A significant difference in bond strengths was found for treatment, aging, and adhesive protocol. Nanoleakage analysis showed higher marginal infiltration in Er:YAG-treated groups both at baseline and after aging. CONCLUSIONS Surfaces prepared with diamond burs presented higher bond strengths than did those prepared with Er:YAG laser. Adhesive protocols and aging could influence the adhesive-dentin interface. Further studies are necessary to validate the results obtained.