Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran.
Lasers Med Sci. 2013 Nov;28(6):1453-60. doi: 10.1007/s10103-012-1222-0. Epub 2012 Nov 8.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect of erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser irradiation and conventional dental bur cavity preparation on in vitro microleakage of class V cavities restored with different adhesive restorative materials and two types of self-etching adhesives in primary teeth. Standard class V cavities were prepared on 80 extracted primary, and the teeth were randomly divided into eight subgroups prepared either by dental bur or Er:YAG laser irradiation and then restored with self-cured glass ionomer (GI), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), resin composite and Clearfil SE Bond (two-step self-etching adhesive), and resin composite and Clearfil S3 Bond (one-step self-etching adhesive). Restorations were finished and stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h and then subjected to thermocycling. All the teeth were sealed with nail varnish, placed in a silver nitrate solution, and then vertically cut in a buccolingually direction. Subsequently, the specimens were evaluated for gingival and occlusal microleakage using a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Mann-Whitney test. Wilcoxon test was used for comparing occlusal microleakage with gingival microleakage at p < 0.05. A higher degree of occlusal and gingival microleakage values for the teeth restored with GI or RMGI was obtained by both preparation methods compared with that of resin composites and the two self-etching primers. Er:YAG laser irradiation resulted in a significantly higher degree of microleakage only at the gingival margins for teeth restored with GI or RMGI, or composite and Clearfil S3 Bond compared with the bur preparation. The Er:YAG laser-prepared teeth restored with composite and Clearfil SE Bond demonstrated a better marginal seal on occlusal and gingival margins compared with that of bur-prepared cavities. The degree of microleakage in class V cavities was affected by the type of adhesive restorative materials, type of self-etching adhesive, cavity margin location, and tooth preparation method either by Er:YAG laser or dental bur.
钇铝石榴石(Er:YAG)激光照射和传统牙钻洞预备对不同黏结修复材料和两种自酸蚀黏结剂修复乳牙Ⅴ类洞的体外微渗漏的影响。在 80 颗离体乳磨牙上制备标准Ⅴ类洞,将牙齿随机分为 8 组,分别用牙钻或 Er:YAG 激光制备,然后用自固化玻璃离子(GI)、树脂改良玻璃离子(RMGI)、树脂复合树脂和 Clearfil SE Bond(两步自酸蚀黏结剂)以及树脂复合树脂和 Clearfil S3 Bond(一步自酸蚀黏结剂)修复。修复体完成后,在 37°C的蒸馏水中储存 24 小时,然后进行热循环。所有牙齿均用指甲油密封,置于硝酸银溶液中,然后沿颊舌方向垂直切割。随后,使用立体显微镜评估标本的龈缘和牙合面微渗漏。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验后进行 Mann-Whitney 检验分析数据。Wilcoxon 检验用于比较牙合面微渗漏与龈缘微渗漏,p<0.05。与树脂复合材料和两种自酸蚀底漆相比,用牙钻和 Er:YAG 激光制备的 GI 或 RMGI 修复的牙齿的牙合面和龈缘微渗漏值较高。与牙钻制备相比,Er:YAG 激光制备的仅用 GI 或 RMGI、复合树脂和 Clearfil S3 Bond 修复的牙齿的龈缘微渗漏值显著较高。与牙钻制备的窝洞相比,用复合树脂和 Clearfil SE Bond 制备的 Er:YAG 激光制备的牙齿在牙合面和龈缘具有更好的边缘密封性。Ⅴ类洞的微渗漏程度受黏结修复材料的类型、自酸蚀黏结剂的类型、洞缘位置以及用 Er:YAG 激光或牙钻进行的牙齿预备方法的影响。