Muhammed Gullshang, Dayem Raad
, Troy, MI, USA.
Lasers Med Sci. 2015 Apr;30(3):969-75. doi: 10.1007/s10103-014-1519-2. Epub 2014 Jan 21.
This study aimed to evaluate the extent of microleakage in class V cavities prepared with bur, Er:YAG laser, and ultrasonic, hybridized with two different bonding agents ("Single bonding" solvent-free bonding agent and "Swiss TEC SL bond" alcohol-based solvent). Thirty freshly extracted human premolars were divided into three groups (n = 10), on each tooth, two cavities were prepared on the buccal and the lingual surfaces, and each group was subdivided into two subgroups (n = 5). Group 1: 20 cavities were prepared by using Er:YAG laser (500 mJ, 10 Hz, 63.69 J/cm(2)) (subgroup1a: Single bonding was used with 10 cavities; subgroup 1b: Swiss TEC SL bond was used with 10 cavities). Group 2: 20 cavities were prepared by using ultrasonic (subgroup 2a: Single bonding was used with 10 cavities; subgroup 2b: Swiss TEC SL bond was used with 10 cavities). Group 3: 20 cavities were prepared by using burs (subgroup 3a: Single bonding was used with 10 cavities; subgroup 3b: Swiss TEC SL bond was used with 10 cavities). Cavities were restored with a micro-hybrid composite resin. After thermocycling, the specimens were immersed in 2 % methylene blue solution for 4 h and then sectioned in the bucco-lingual direction. Dye penetration was scored based upon the extent of the dye using a stereomicroscope. The two-way ANOVA test and paired t-test revealed no statistically significant differences among the methods of preparation (conventional, laser, and ultrasonic). However, statistical differences were found between the adhesives tested: the "Single bonding", which represented the solvent-free bonding agent, had lower microleakage values than "Swiss TEC SL bond", which represented the alcohol-based bonding agent. Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that the Erbium:Yttrium-Aluminum Garnet (Er:YAG) laser and ultrasonic are as effective as the conventional method for preparing cavities and the extent of microleakage depends on the type of the bonding agents.
本研究旨在评估使用牙钻、铒激光(Er:YAG)和超声分别制备Ⅴ类洞形后,与两种不同粘结剂(“单键合”无溶剂粘结剂和“瑞士TEC SL粘结剂”醇基溶剂型粘结剂)联合使用时的微渗漏程度。将30颗新鲜拔除的人类前磨牙分为三组(n = 10),每颗牙齿的颊面和舌面各制备两个洞形,每组再细分为两个亚组(n = 5)。第1组:使用铒激光(500 mJ,10 Hz,63.69 J/cm²)制备20个洞形(亚组1a:10个洞形使用“单键合”粘结剂;亚组1b:10个洞形使用“瑞士TEC SL粘结剂”)。第2组:使用超声制备20个洞形(亚组2a:10个洞形使用“单键合”粘结剂;亚组2b:10个洞形使用“瑞士TEC SL粘结剂”)。第3组:使用牙钻制备20个洞形(亚组3a:10个洞形使用“单键合”粘结剂;亚组3b:10个洞形使用“瑞士TEC SL粘结剂”)。用微混合复合树脂修复洞形。热循环后,将标本浸入2%亚甲蓝溶液中4小时,然后沿颊舌方向切片。使用体视显微镜根据染料渗透程度对染料渗透情况进行评分。双向方差分析和配对t检验显示,制备方法(传统方法、激光和超声)之间无统计学显著差异。然而,在所测试的粘结剂之间发现了统计学差异:代表无溶剂粘结剂的“单键合”粘结剂的微渗漏值低于代表醇基粘结剂的“瑞士TEC SL粘结剂”。基于本研究结果,可以得出结论,铒钇铝石榴石(Er:YAG)激光和超声在制备洞形方面与传统方法同样有效,微渗漏程度取决于粘结剂的类型。