Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.
Lasers Med Sci. 2012 Jul;27(4):805-11. doi: 10.1007/s10103-011-0980-4. Epub 2011 Aug 19.
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser and different cavity disinfection agents on microleakage of an etch-and-rinse and a self-etch adhesive. Class V preparations were completed on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 30 extracted noncarious human molars. The occlusal margin was placed on enamel and the gingival margin on dentin. Preparations were randomly divided into five experimental groups (n = 12); (1) 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), (2) propolis, (3) ozone, (4) Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and (5) control (no treatment). Each group was divided into two subgroups according to the adhesive system: etch-and-rinse (Adper Single Bond 2), and a self-etch adhesive (All-Bond SE). The preparations were bulk-filled with a resin composite (Arabesk). After storage in distilled water for 24 h the restored teeth were subjected to thermocycling (1,000 cycles; 5-55°C). All specimens were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin solution for 24 h and sectioned longitudinally through the centre of the restorations and examined under a stereomicroscope at ×25 magnification. The data were analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests. No difference was observed between the groups either on enamel or dentin when the etch-and-rinse adhesive was used (p > 0.05). In the self-etch adhesive groups, a significant difference was found only between the laser group and the CHX group on enamel and between the propolis group and the control group on dentin (p < 0.05). Comparing the etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives within each group, no differences were found on dentin (p > 0.05). On enamel, a statistically significant difference was found only in the CHX group (p < 0.05). There were no differences in microleakage with the laser and the different cavity disinfectant applications when used with etch-and-rinse adhesive. In the self-etch group there were differences in microleakage depending on the disinfection agent used.
本研究旨在比较 Er,Cr:YSGG 激光和不同腔体消毒剂对酸蚀冲洗型和自酸蚀型黏结剂微渗漏的影响。在 30 颗离体无龋磨牙的颊面和舌面完成 V 类洞型制备。咬合边缘置于釉质，龈缘置于牙本质。将制备体随机分为五组（每组 n = 12）；（1）2%葡萄糖酸氯己定（CHX），（2）蜂胶，（3）臭氧，（4）Er,Cr:YSGG 激光，（5）对照组（不处理）。根据黏结系统，每组进一步分为两个亚组：酸蚀冲洗型（Adper Single Bond 2）和自酸蚀型（All-Bond SE）。用树脂复合材料（Arabesk）进行分层充填。在蒸馏水中储存 24 小时后，将修复后的牙齿进行热循环（1000 次循环；5-55°C）。所有标本均用 0.5%碱性品红溶液浸泡 24 小时，然后沿修复体中心纵向切开，在立体显微镜下（×25 放大率）观察。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Mann-Whitney U 检验对数据进行分析。当使用酸蚀冲洗型黏结剂时，各组在釉质或牙本质上均无差异（p > 0.05）。在自酸蚀黏结剂组中，仅在激光组和 CHX 组之间在釉质上以及在蜂胶组和对照组之间在牙本质上观察到显著差异（p < 0.05）。在每个组内比较酸蚀冲洗型和自酸蚀型黏结剂，在牙本质上未见差异（p > 0.05）。仅在 CHX 组在釉质上发现统计学显著差异（p < 0.05）。当使用 Er,Cr:YSGG 激光和不同腔体消毒剂与酸蚀冲洗型黏结剂一起使用时，在微渗漏方面没有差异。在自酸蚀组中，由于使用的消毒剂不同，微渗漏存在差异。
