SEM Evaluation of Enamel Surface Changes and Enamel Microhardness around Orthodontic Brackets after Application of CO Laser, Er,Cr:YSGG Laser and Fluoride Varnish: An In vivo Study.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most undesirable consequences of orthodontic treatment is occurrence of enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets. Numerous in vitro studies have reported the prevention of enamel demineralization by surface treatment with lasers and fluoride varnish.

AIM

To evaluate the changes on the enamel surface and microhardness around orthodontic brackets after surface treatment by CO laser, Er, Cr:YSGG laser and fluoride varnish in vivo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A double blind interventional study was carried out on 100 premolars which were equally divided into five groups, out of which one was the control group (Group 0). The intervention groups (Group I to IV) comprised of patients requiring fixed orthodontic treatment with all 4 first premolars extraction. Brackets were bonded on all 80 premolars which were to be extracted. Enamel surface treatment of Groups I, II and III was done by CO laser, Er, Cr:YSGG laser and 5% sodium fluoride varnish respectively and Group IV did not receive any surface treatment. A modified T-loop was ligated to the bracket and after two months, the premolars were extracted. Surface changes were evaluated by Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) and microhardness testing. Comparison of mean microhardness between all the groups was assessed using post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

Group I showed a melted enamel appearance with fine cracks and fissures while Group II showed a glossy, homogenous enamel surface with well coalesced enamel rods. Group III showed slight areas of erosions and Group IV presented areas of stripped enamel. Significant difference was observed between the mean microhardness (VHN) of Group I, Group II, Group III, Group IV and Group 0 with p<0.001. A significant difference of p<0.001 was observed while comparing Group I vs II,III,IV,0 and Group II vs III,IV,0. However, difference while comparing Group III vs IV was p=0.005 and difference between the mean microhardness of Group 0 vs Group III was non significant.

CONCLUSION

Surface treatment with Er,Cr:YSGG laser causes a positive alteration of the enamel surface increasing its ability to resist demineralization with optimum microhardness as compared to CO laser and sodium fluoride varnish.