Assessing microleakage of class V resin composite restorations after Er:YAG laser and bur preparation.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the extent of microleakage in cavities prepared with bur and Er:YAG laser, hybridized with different bonding systems.


METHODS
Sixty bovine teeth were randomly divided into six groups (n = 10): (G1) Diamond bur + Single Bond; (G2) Diamond bur + AdheSE; (G3) Diamond bur + Clearfil SE Bond; (G4) Er:YAG (250 mJ, 4 Hz, 80.6 J/cm(2)) + Single Bond; (G5)Er:YAG + AdheSE, and (G6) Er:YAG + Clearfil. Cavities were restored with a micro-hybrid composite resin. After thermocycling, the specimens were stained with 2% methylene blue solution and sectioned in the mesiodistal direction. Dye penetration was scored based upon the extent of the dye using a light stereoscope.


RESULTS
The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney test revealed no statistically significant differences between the method of preparation (diamond bur and laser). However, statistical differences were found between the adhesives tested.


CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study, Er:YAG laser confirmed to be as effective as the conventional methods for preparing adhesive restorations.
Aranha
Ana Cecilia Corrêa
AC
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes, 2227 Cidade Universitaria, São Paulo (SP) 05508-900, Brazil. acca@usp.br
Turbino
Mirian Lacalle
ML
Powell
G Lynn
GL
Eduardo
Carlos de Paula
Cde P
D000818:Animals; D002417:Cattle; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000009:adverse effects*; D003737:Dental Cavity Preparation / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000295:instrumentation; D003763:Dental Leakage / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000209:etiology; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods; D053685:Laser Therapy; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000009:adverse effects*
C438313:Clearfil SE Bond; D003188:Composite Resins; D019279:Resin Cements