To evaluate the immediate and aged bond strength and interfacial nanolaekage of different adhesives and protocols on dental elements prepared with diamond burs and Er:YAG laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty molar crowns were flattened and a standardized smear layer was created. Teeth were divided into two main groups according to the dentin cutting technique: 1. Er:YAG laser for 30 s at 30 Hz repetition rate, 250 mJ energy per pulse, and water spray irrigation set at level 8; and 2. diamond bur. Each group was then divided into subgroups according to the adhesive protocol: SG1: dentin etching for 15 s followed by universal adhesive application (All Bond Universal, Bisco); SG2: universal adhesive application (All Bond Universal); SG3: two-step self-etch adhesive application (Clearfil SE Bond 2, Kuraray Noritake); SG4: etching followed by 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive application (Optibond FL, Kerr). After curing the adhesives, resin composite buildups of 4 mm were made and specimens were sectioned to obtain 1-mm-thick sticks in accordance with the μTBS test technique. Sticks were stressed to failure at baseline and after 6 months of storage in artificial saliva. Three teeth per group were prepared for nanoleakage interfacial analyses. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: A significant difference in bond strengths was found for treatment, aging, and adhesive protocol. Nanoleakage analysis showed higher marginal infiltration in Er:YAG-treated groups both at baseline and after aging. CONCLUSIONS: Surfaces prepared with diamond burs presented higher bond strengths than did those prepared with Er:YAG laser. Adhesive protocols and aging could influence the adhesive-dentin interface. Further studies are necessary to validate the results obtained.

Effect of Er: YAG and burs on coronal dentin bond strength stability

Comba A.;Baldi A.;Michelotto Tempesta R.;Carpegna G.;Mazzoni A.;Breschi L.;Alovisi M.;Pasqualini D.;Scotti N.
2019-01-01

Abstract

To evaluate the immediate and aged bond strength and interfacial nanolaekage of different adhesives and protocols on dental elements prepared with diamond burs and Er:YAG laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty molar crowns were flattened and a standardized smear layer was created. Teeth were divided into two main groups according to the dentin cutting technique: 1. Er:YAG laser for 30 s at 30 Hz repetition rate, 250 mJ energy per pulse, and water spray irrigation set at level 8; and 2. diamond bur. Each group was then divided into subgroups according to the adhesive protocol: SG1: dentin etching for 15 s followed by universal adhesive application (All Bond Universal, Bisco); SG2: universal adhesive application (All Bond Universal); SG3: two-step self-etch adhesive application (Clearfil SE Bond 2, Kuraray Noritake); SG4: etching followed by 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive application (Optibond FL, Kerr). After curing the adhesives, resin composite buildups of 4 mm were made and specimens were sectioned to obtain 1-mm-thick sticks in accordance with the μTBS test technique. Sticks were stressed to failure at baseline and after 6 months of storage in artificial saliva. Three teeth per group were prepared for nanoleakage interfacial analyses. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: A significant difference in bond strengths was found for treatment, aging, and adhesive protocol. Nanoleakage analysis showed higher marginal infiltration in Er:YAG-treated groups both at baseline and after aging. CONCLUSIONS: Surfaces prepared with diamond burs presented higher bond strengths than did those prepared with Er:YAG laser. Adhesive protocols and aging could influence the adhesive-dentin interface. Further studies are necessary to validate the results obtained.
2019
21
4
329
335
https://jad.quintessenz.de/5875/jad_2019_04_s0329.pdf
Adhesion; Adhesive interface; Bond strength testing; Er:YAG laser; Dental Cements; Dentin; Resin Cements; Tensile Strength; Dental Bonding; Dentin-Bonding Agents
Comba A.; Baldi A.; Michelotto Tempesta R.; Cedrone A.; Carpegna G.; Mazzoni A.; Breschi L.; Alovisi M.; Pasqualini D.; Scotti N.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Pasqualini.pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 7.19 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
7.19 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1717923
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 7
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 6
social impact