Kallis Antonis, Tolidis Kosmas, Gerasimou Paris, Dionysopoulos Dimitrios
Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Lasers Med Sci. 2019 Feb;34(1):23-34. doi: 10.1007/s10103-018-2575-9. Epub 2018 Jul 8.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the thickness and qualitative characteristics of the hybrid layer after two cavity preparation methods, using Er:YAG laser in QSP mode and conventional carbide burs. Additionally, two different adhesive techniques were investigated using etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems. Sixty sound human third molars were used and were randomly divided into four groups (n = 15). In the first two groups, large (4 mm length, 3 mm wide, and 3 mm deep) class I cavities were prepared using Er:YAG laser (2.94 μm) in QSP mode, while in the other two groups, the cavities were prepared using carbide burs. After cavity preparations, two different adhesive techniques with GLUMA® 2 Bond (etch-and-rinse) and Clearfil™ Universal Bond Quick (self-etch) were applied. For the qualitative evaluation of the formed hybrid layer, photomicrographs were taken using SEM, and elemental semi-quantitative analysis was performed using EDS to confirm the extent of the hybrid layer. One-way ANOVA was applied to verify the existence of statistically significant differences, followed by Tukey test for post hoc comparisons (Bonferroni corrected), and the level of significance was set at a = 0.05. The laser-treated groups exhibited higher hybrid layer thickness than bur-treated groups (p < 0.001). Between the laser-treated groups, etch-and-rinse technique presented higher hybrid layer thickness than self-etch technique (p < 0.001), while between the bur-treated groups, no significant differences were detected (p = 0.366). Er:YAG laser cavity preparations in QSP mode may be advantageous for adhesion of composite restorations, but more data are necessary to confirm its clinical effectiveness.
本研究的目的是评估采用QSP模式的铒钇铝石榴石(Er:YAG)激光和传统硬质合金车针这两种窝洞预备方法后,混合层的厚度和质量特征。此外,还研究了使用酸蚀冲洗粘结系统和自酸蚀粘结系统这两种不同的粘结技术。使用了60颗健康的人类第三磨牙,并将其随机分为四组(n = 15)。在前两组中,使用QSP模式的Er:YAG激光(2.94μm)制备大型(长4mm、宽3mm、深3mm)I类窝洞,而在另外两组中,使用硬质合金车针制备窝洞。窝洞预备后,应用两种不同的粘结技术,即使用GLUMA® 2 Bond(酸蚀冲洗)和Clearfil™ Universal Bond Quick(自酸蚀)。为了对形成的混合层进行质量评估,使用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)拍摄显微照片,并使用能谱仪(EDS)进行元素半定量分析,以确定混合层的范围。应用单因素方差分析来验证是否存在统计学上的显著差异,随后进行Tukey检验以进行事后比较(Bonferroni校正),显著性水平设定为α = 0.05。激光治疗组的混合层厚度高于车针治疗组(p < 0.001)。在激光治疗组之间,酸蚀冲洗技术的混合层厚度高于自酸蚀技术(p < 0.001),而在车针治疗组之间,未检测到显著差异(p = 0.366)。采用QSP模式的Er:YAG激光进行窝洞预备可能有利于复合树脂修复体的粘结,但需要更多数据来证实其临床有效性。