Marginal adaptation of two-step self-etch versus universal adhesives for Class V restorations: Effect of Er:YAG laser vs. bur prepared cavities.

PURPOSE

To compare the in vitro effect of laser and bur preparation on marginal adaptation of Class V cavities restored with a 2-step self-etch and distinct universal one-component universal adhesives used in self-etching mode.

METHODS

96 Class V cavities were prepared with conventional burs or with an Er:YAG laser. Four universal self-etch (Unibond Extra Low Shrinkage, All Bond Universal, SKB-100 and Prime&Bond active) and a 2-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) that served as control were used to restore the cavities with direct composite. The percentages of continuous margins were evaluated by quantitative SEM analysis before and after a fatigue test consisting of 240,000 occlusal loads and 600 warm/cold thermal cycles.

RESULTS

The marginal adaptation of bur prepared restorations was statistically superior to laser-prepared ones. Class V cavities restored with Clearfil SE Bond and the one-component self-etching universal adhesives All Bond Universal and Prime&Bond active presented the highest and statistically similar percentages of continuous margins before and after loading under both bur and laser cavity preparation. The lowest percentages of continuous margins were observed in the groups restored with the low shrinking adhesive (Unibond ELS), with medians of 49 and 21 for bur and laser prepared cavities after loading.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Class V cavities presented smoother and higher percentages of continuous margins when prepared by bur rather than by laser. The 2-step self-etch adhesive Clearfil SE Bond and 1-step self-etch universal adhesives All Bond Universal and Prime&Bond active showed a comparable marginal performance.