Department of Operative Dentistry, Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry, Capa/Fatih, 34093, Istanbul, Turkey.
Lasers Med Sci. 2011 Mar;26(2):163-70. doi: 10.1007/s10103-010-0755-3. Epub 2010 Feb 17.
The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the microleakage of repaired class V resin composite restorations prepared either by Er:YAG laser or a diamond bur. Ninety-six intact human molar teeth were randomly distributed into eight groups. In the first four groups, class V cavities (3 × 3 × 3 mm) prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of the teeth using an erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser (VersaWave, HOYA ConBio, Japan). Similar class V cavities were prepared in the second four groups using a diamond bur (S-Class, Komet, UK). Teeth in groups 1, 2, and 5, 6 were restored with a nano-ceramic composite (Ceram.X duo, DENTSPLY), whereas a silorane material (Filtek Silorane, 3M ESPE) was used to restore cavities in groups 3, 4, and 7, 8. Two different adhesive systems (XP Bond, DENTSPLY, and Silorane System Adhesive, 3M ESPE) were also used. All specimens were aged for 7 days. New cavities (3 × 3 × 3 mm) were prepared adjacent to the old restorations with Er:YAG laser (groups I-IV) or diamond bur (groups V-VIII). Different repair materials were then applied to the new cavities using the previous two restorative materials and two adhesive systems. All teeth were subjected to thermocycling (5,000 cycles between 5 and 55°C) and axial loadcycling (30 N, 1 Hz, 2,000 cycles). Specimens were immersed in 50% w/w silver nitrate solution. Teeth were sectioned longitudinally in buccolingual direction. Stereomicroscope (Nikon SMZ 800) and SEM (JEOL JSM 5600) were used to evaluate the microleakage that existed at the interface between the old restorations and the repair materials. Data were analyzed statistically with one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05). Even though no statistically significant differences were found between any of the groups, the cavities repaired with different restoratives showed slight microleakage, especially those prepared by Er:YAG laser (p > 0.05). No microleakage scores were obtained in the groups repaired with Filtek Silorane/Filtek Silorane and Ceram.X/Ceram.X. All the substances tested can be used as repair materials for immediate repair after Er:YAG laser and diamond bur. All substances tested in this study can be used as immediate repair materials after cavity preparations with Er:YAG laser or diamond bur.
本体外研究旨在比较 Er:YAG 激光与金刚石车针对 V 类洞树脂修复体微渗漏的影响。将 96 颗完整的人磨牙随机分为 8 组。第 1 至 4 组在牙的颊舌面用 Er:YAG 激光（VersaWave，HOYA ConBio，日本）制备 V 类洞（3×3×3mm）。第 5 至 8 组用金刚石车（S-Class，Komet，英国）制备相似的 V 类洞。第 1、2 组和第 5、6 组用纳米陶瓷复合材料（Ceram.X duo，DENTSPLY）修复，第 3、4 组和第 7、8 组用硅烷材料（Filtek Silorane，3M ESPE）修复。还使用了两种不同的粘接系统（XP Bond，DENTSPLY 和 Silorane System Adhesive，3M ESPE）。所有样本均老化 7 天。用 Er:YAG 激光（第 I 至 IV 组）或金刚石车（第 V 至 VIII 组）在旧修复体旁制备新的 V 类洞。然后使用前两种修复材料和两种粘接系统将不同的修复材料应用于新的洞。所有牙齿均经过热循环（5 至 55°C 之间 5000 次循环）和轴向负载循环（30N，1Hz，2000 次循环）。将样本浸入 50%w/w 硝酸银溶液中。沿颊舌方向将牙齿纵向切割。使用立体显微镜（Nikon SMZ 800）和扫描电子显微镜（JEOL JSM 5600）评估旧修复体与修复材料之间界面的微渗漏情况。采用单因素方差分析和 Tukey 检验进行统计学分析（p<0.05）。尽管任何一组之间均未发现统计学上的显著差异，但用不同修复材料修复的洞显示出轻微的微渗漏，尤其是用 Er:YAG 激光制备的洞（p>0.05）。用 Filtek Silorane/Filtek Silorane 和 Ceram.X/Ceram.X 修复的组未获得微渗漏评分。所有测试物质均可作为 Er:YAG 激光和金刚石车后即刻修复的修复材料。所有测试物质均可作为 Er:YAG 激光或金刚石车制备洞后即刻修复的材料。
J Appl Oral Sci. 2004-9
Lasers Med Sci. 2008-7-4
Microsc Res Tech. 2008-7
Dent Mater J. 2007-3
Dent Mater J. 2006-9
J Adhes Dent. 2005
Zotero 插件