Sarmadi Roxana, Andersson Elin Viktoria, Lingström Peter, Gabre Pia
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Public Dental Health, Uppsala County Council, Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Cariology, Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Open Dent J. 2018 May 31;12:443-454. doi: 10.2174/1874210601812010443. eCollection 2018.
The aim of this study was to evaluate patients´ experiences of two excavation methods, Er:YAG laser and rotary bur and time required by the methods as well as objective assessments of quality and durability of restorations over a two-year period.
A prospective, single-blind, randomized and controlled investigation was performed. Patients aged 15 to 40 years with at least two primary caries lesions, which had been radiographically assessed as of the same size, were recruited. In each patient, one cavity was excavated using rotary bur and one using Er:YAG laser technique. The time required for excavations and, where applicable, local anaesthesia, was measured during the treatments. Patient experiences were measured using questionnaires. The quality and durability of restorations were assessed over a two-year period in accordance with modified Ryges criteria and radiographs. Twenty-five patients (mean age 22.6 years) participated in the study. In total, 56 cavities were included of which 28 were treated with Er:YAG laser and 28 were treated with a rotary bur.
The patients associated the laser method with less discomfort. The mean time for excavation by laser was three times longer than by rotary bur (13.2 min . 4.3 min, <0.0001). Over a two-year period, no statistically significant differences with regard to quality or durability could be seen between the restorations associated with the methods.
The Er:YAG laser technique was more time-consuming than the rotary bur. Despite this, the laser technique caused less discomfort and was preferred as an excavation method by patients.
本研究旨在评估患者对两种窝洞预备方法（铒激光和旋转车针）的体验、方法所需时间，以及对修复体质量和两年耐久性的客观评估。
进行了一项前瞻性、单盲、随机对照研究。招募了年龄在15至40岁之间、至少有两个经X线片评估为大小相同的原发性龋损的患者。在每位患者中，一个窝洞用旋转车针预备，另一个用铒激光技术预备。治疗过程中测量预备窝洞以及必要时局部麻醉所需的时间。通过问卷调查来衡量患者的体验。根据改良的Ryges标准和X线片对修复体的质量和耐久性进行为期两年的评估。25名患者（平均年龄22.6岁）参与了该研究。总共纳入了56个窝洞，其中28个用铒激光治疗，28个用旋转车针治疗。
患者认为激光法带来的不适更少。激光预备窝洞的平均时间比旋转车针长三倍（13.2分钟对4.3分钟，P<0.0001）。在两年期间，两种方法相关的修复体在质量或耐久性方面没有统计学上的显著差异。
铒激光技术比旋转车针更耗时。尽管如此，激光技术引起的不适更少，是患者更青睐的窝洞预备方法。
