Shear bond strength of a composite resin restoration in primary teeth following cavity preparation using laser- an in-vitro study

To evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of composite resin restorations in primary teeth, following cavity preparation with both traditional dental burs and laser irradiation. One hundred primary molars extracted from the children visiting our department were collected and randomly divided into five groups (A-E) with 20 teeth in each group. In groups A, B, C, D, and E the teeth samples were etched with phosphoric acid, Er; YAG laser followed by acid etching, Er, Cr: YSGG laser followed by acid etching, Er; YAG laser etching only and Er, Cr: YSGG laser etching only, respectively. Following, all the samples were restored with composite resin and subjected to 500 cycles of thermocycling. The shear bond strength of the resin composite was analyzed. The type of fractures was also noted. Data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis. The mean value of shear bond strength of Group A, B, C, D, and E was 17.562 ± 0.810, 15.928 ± 0.415, 14.964 ± 0.566, 11.833 ± 0.533 and 11.187 ± 0.517, respectively. Adhesive failure was most commonly seen in all the groups. The phosphoric acid etching remains a highly effective technique for pre-treating dentin in composite resin restorations. The shear strength of composite resin to the dentin of laser-prepared cavity in primary teeth can be improved by the addition of acid etching.

Effect of different types of adhesive systems on the bond strength and marginal integrity of composite restorations in cavities prepared with the erbium laser-a systematic review

There are inconclusive results regarding etching and bonding protocol to achieve optimal bond strength and marginal integrity of adhesive composite resin restorations in erbium laser prepared cavities. This systematic review aimed to consider which adhesive system protocol may be optimal in achieving the bond strength and marginal integrity in erbium laser-prepared cavities, comparable to that obtained with conventional method of cavity preparation. This review was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement with literature search based on all publications during the period January1, 2000-October 10, 2020, in three databases: MEDLINE, Google Scholar and ScienceDirect. The necessary information was extracted by two independent authors. The search resulted in 139 articles from all databases, and a total of thirty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that the selection of adhesives depending on their pH and composition and the laser pulse duration and pulse energy used plays an important role in predicting the adhesion and marginal integrity. The 10-MDP containing moderate self-etch adhesives has demonstrated predictable outcomes. Longer pulse durations used for cavity preparations may indicate the use of etch-and-rinse (EnR) or moderate self-etch adhesives (SEA) to allow better resin infiltration in deep craters formed due to laser irradiation. However, further studies with more standardizations in relation to adhesives and laser parameters are needed.

Influence of grape seed extract in adhesion on dentin surfaces conditioned with Er,Cr:YSGG laser

The proanthocyanidin (PA)-rich grape seed extract (GSE) is a collagen cross-linking agent that can perform a chemical bond with the dentin's collagen. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence on shear bond strength (SBS) of the pre-conditioning of GSE, on human dentin surfaces conditioned with Er,Cr:YSGG laser. The sample consisted of 64 non-carious human teeth, divided into eight groups, four groups conditioned with Er,Cr:YSGG laser (4.5 W, 50 Hz, 50 μs, 70% air, 90% water) and four prepared with conventional methods (control). In both groups, a GSE solution was applied before using the two adhesives tested: Clearfil^™ SE Bond (CSE) and Scotchbond^™ Universal (SU). Subsequently, a SBS test, a scanning electron microscopy, and a statistical analysis were performed. In the laser groups, the best SBS mean (20.08 ± 4.01 MPa) was achieved in the group treated with GSE and CSE. The control group with the application of CSE showed the highest SBS mean (24.27 ± 10.28 MPa), and the group treated with laser and SU showed the lowest SBS mean (12.94 ± 6.51 MPa). Between these two groups there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.05). However, this was not observed among the laser or control groups. The type of dentin surface preparation can influence the SBS. The CSE showed better SBS in laser and control groups. The presence of GSE did not improve the adhesion on surfaces conditioned with laser, but more studies should be carried out in the future to confirm this conclusion.

Adhesion in Dentin Prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG Laser: Systematic Review

Background:

In dentistry, cavities prepared with Erbium lasers present more advantages, compared to traditional methods, but there is still a lack of investigation about the adhesion in dentin surfaces prepared with Erbium lasers, especially with Erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser.

Aim:

The purpose of this systematic review was to find out which might be “The most adequate adhesive and laser parameters for adhesion in dentin prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG laser.”

Methods:

An electronic search was performed in the PubMed database. The search was limited to studies between 2009 and 2016.

Results:

Ten articles were selected to the systematic review according to TRANSPARENT REPORTING of Systematic Reviews and Meta-ANALYSES checklist.

Conclusions:

The adhesive that showed the best bond strength results in dentin prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG laser was the self-adhesive Clearfil™ SE (Kuraray), with preconditioning with 40% phosphoric acid. The settings 2 W, 75% water, 60% air, 140 μs pulse duration, and 20 Hz showed the best adhesion outcome.

Comparison of shear bond strength of composite resin to enamel surface with laser etching versus acid etching: An in vitro evaluation

Introduction:

The aim of the study is in vitro evaluation of the shear bond strength of composite resin bonded to enamel which is pretreated using acid etchant and Er,Cr:Ysgg.

Materials and Methods:

40 extracted human teeth were divided in two groups of 20 each (Groups A and B). In Group A, prepared surface of enamel was etched using 37% phosphoric acid (Scotchbond, 3M). In Group B, enamel was surface treated by a an Er, Cr: YSGG laser system (Waterlase MD, Biolase Technology Inc., San Clemente, CA, USA) operating at a wavelength of 2,780 nm and having a pulse duration of 140-200 microsecond with a repetition rate of 20 Hz and 40 Hz. Bonding agent ((Scotchbond Multipurpose, 3M) was applied over the test areas on 20 samples of Groups A and B each, and light cured. Composite resin (Ceram X duo Nanoceramic restorative, Densply) was applied onto the test areas as a 3 × 3 mm diameter bid, and light cured. The samples were tested for shear bond strength.

Results:

Mean shear bond strength for acid-etched enamel (26.41 ± 0.66MPa, range 25.155 to 27.150 MPa) was significantly higher (P < 0.01) than for laser-etched enamel (16.23 ± 0.71MPa, range 15.233 to 17.334 MPa).

Conclusions:

For enamel surface, mean shear bond strength of bonded composite obtained after laser etching were significantly lower than those obtained after acid etching.

Micromorphology analysis and bond strength of two adhesives to Er,Cr:YSGG laser-prepared vs. bur-prepared fluorosed enamel

Preservation of enamel during composite veneer restorations of fluorosed teeth could be achieved by conservative preparation with Erbium lasers. This study evaluated the effect of fluorosed enamel preparation with Er,Cr:YSGG vs. conventional diamond bur on the micromorphology and bond strength of a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesives. Er,Cr:YSGG laser or diamond bur preparation was performed on the flattened midbuccal surfaces of 70 extracted human premolars with moderate fluorosis (according to Thylstrup and Fejerskov index, TFI = 4-6). Adper Single Bond (SB) with acid etching for 20 or 40 s and Clearfil SE Bond (SEB) alone or with additional etching was applied in four laser groups. The same adhesive procedures were used in three bur groups except for 40 s of etching along with SB. After restoration, microshear bond strength was measured (MPa). Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tamhane tests (α = 0.05). Six additional specimens were differently prepared and conditioned for scanning electron microscopy evaluation. The highest and lowest bond strengths were obtained for bur-prepared/SB (39.5) and laser-prepared/SEB (16.9), respectively, with a significant difference (P = 0.001). The different adhesive procedures used associated to two adhesives exhibited insignificantly lower bonding in laser-prepared groups compared to bur-prepared ones (P > 0.05), with the exception of additional etching/SEB, which bonded significantly higher to bur-prepared (36.4) than to laser-prepared enamel (18.7, P = 0.04). Morphological analyses revealed a delicate etch pattern with exposed enamel prisms on laser-prepared fluorosed enamel after acid etching and less microretentive pattern after self-etching primer. The etch-and-rinse adhesive was preferred in the laser-prepared fluorosed enamel in terms of bonding performance.

Shear bond strength and SEM morphology evaluation of different dental adhesives to enamel prepared with ER:YAG laser

CONTEXT

Early observations of enamel surfaces prepared by erbium lasers motivated clinicians to use laser as an alternative to chemical etching.

AIMS

Evaluate shear bond strength (SBS) values of different dental adhesives on Erbium:Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Er:YAG) laser prepared enamel and to evaluate possible etching patterns correlations between dental adhesives and SBS values.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

One hundred bovine incisors were randomly assigned to SBS tests on enamel (n = 15) and to enamel morphology analysis (n = 5) after Er:YAG laser preparation as follows: Group I - 37% phosphoric acid (PA)+ ExciTE(®); Group II - ExciTE(®); Group III - AdheSE(®) self-etching; Group IV - FuturaBond(®) no-rinse. NR; Group V - Xeno(®) V. Teeth were treated with the adhesive systems and subjected to thermal cycling. SBS were performed in a universal testing machine at 5 mm/min.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

One-way ANOVA and post-hoc tests (P < 0.05). For the morphology evaluation, specimens were immersed in Ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) and the etching pattern analyzed under Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM).

RESULTS

Mean bond strengths were Group I - 47.17 ± 1.61 MPa (type I etching pattern); Group II - 32.56 ± 1.64 MPa, Group III - 29.10 ± 1.34 MPa, Group IV - 23.32 ± 1.53 MPa (type III etching pattern); Group V - 24.43 MPa ± 1.55 (type II etching pattern).

CONCLUSIONS

Different adhesive systems yielded significantly different SBSs. Acid etching significantly increased the adhesion in laser treated enamel. No differences in SBS values were obtained between AdheSE(®) and ExciTE(®) without condition with PA. FuturaBond(®) NR and Xeno(®) V showed similar SBS, which was lower in comparison to the others adhesives. No correlation between enamel surface morphology and SBS values was observed, except when PA was used.

Shear strength of composite bonded to Er:YAG laser-prepared enamel: an in vitro comparative study

The primary objective of this study is to investigate the adhesion properties between four current generations of bonding systems and enamel surface conditioned by Er:YAG laser, using an energy density comparable to the ablation threshold of enamel. By including an energy density comparable to published adhesion studies, the secondary objective is to compare the adhesion effects of these selected laser conditioning parameters on enamel with other similar published studies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Buccal sides of randomly selected human molars (N=117) were prepared and divided into nine experimental groups depending on the generations of bonding system represented by the corresponding number (G4, G5, G6, G7) and the additional laser conditioning on the enamel surface represented by laser etch (LE) and laser etch with a higher pulse energy, followed by acid etch (AE), if required. The bonding resin systems and their specific requirements were applied after the enamel surfaces were laser conditioned following a specific set of laser parameters. Composite posts of 1.6 mm in diameter and approximately 6 mm in length were then restored on each of the sample surfaces. After 48 h, the composite assemblies were tested to failure under compression using a knife edge loading head at a cross head speed of 1 mm/min until the composite cylinders were separated from the surface. The data collected were then analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and SAS software program (9.1, TS1M3).

RESULTS

No significant difference was found among these groups: AE+G4/LEAE+G4, G6/LE+G6, and G7/LE+G7. Significant differences were found in the remaining groups: AE+G5/LEAE+G5, AE+G5/LEAE-H+G5, and LEAE+G5/LEAE-H+G5. The bond strength results were compared among similar published data and possible influences from different laser parameters, bonding systems, and their combined impact on the enamel surface and its adhesion properties were analyzed.

CONCLUSION

Under our specific settings, additional laser conditioning after phosphoric acid etch is beneficial to one generation of bonding resin (G5). There is no significant change or detrimental effect to the other three groups (G4, G6, and G7) of bonding resins with respect to their final bond strength. The published reports of lower bond strength after additional laser conditioning may be related to thermal damage or unfavorable alteration to the enamel surface by excessive laser energy and the chemistry of bonding systems studied. These factors will affect the overall wettability and the subsequent adhesion properties of the enamel surface.

Adhesion to Er:YAG laser and bur prepared root and crown dentine

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond strengths between dentine and resin composite obtained after Er:YAG laser treatment of crown or root dentine used together with self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems.

METHODS

One etch-and-rinse adhesive (Single Bond, 3M, USA) and one self-etch system (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray, Japan) were applied to root and crown dentine prepared with a regular bur in a turbine or with an Er:YAG laser. The shear bond strength was determined after thermocycling and statistically analysed using independent t-tests.

RESULTS

Crown sites bonded using Clearfil SE Bond and Single Bond adhesives yielded bond strengths similar to that of root dentine sites (p > 0.05). Clearfil SE Bond was stronger in both the lased and non-lased groups (p < 0.05). The lowest bond strength was obtained when Single Bond without acid etching was used on Er:YAG ablated dentine. When total-etch adhesive was used, there were significant differences (p < 0.05) between the laser-ablated and laser-ablated/acid-etched and bur-cut/acid-etched groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Er:YAG laser irradiation of root and crown dentine conducted prior to the adhesive protocol adversely affected adhesion and decreased bond strength compared with traditional preparation.

The impact of Er,Cr:YSGG laser on the shear strength of the bond between dentin and ceramic is dependent on the adhesive material

The bond joint between dentin and ceramic is a critical determinant in prosthodontic dentistry. The laser is an alternative to the diamond bur for preparing tooth cavities. However, the impact of lasers on the bond between the laser-irradiated dentin and the ceramic remains a matter of controversy. We determined the shear strength of bonds between ceramic blocks and human dentin discs prepared with either an Er,Cr:YSGG laser or a diamond bur. A total of 180 dentin discs were randomly assigned to four groups. Three groups of discs were prepared with the Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation (2 W, 30 Hz, 50% H(2)O, 70% air) and the fourth group was prepared with a diamond bur. In one of the laser groups the discs surfaces were also treated with phosphoric acid and in another with phosphoric acid and mechanical smoothing using a dental excavator. The ceramic blocks were bonded to the dentin discs with Syntac adhesive (together with Variolink II curing system), ExciTE adhesive (together with Variolink II curing system) or RelyX self-adhesive cement. The shear strength of the bond between ceramic and dentin was significantly higher following dentin surface treatment with the laser alone than following treatment with the diamond bur and Variolink II/Syntac (p = 0.021) but not significantly higher than following treatment with the diamond bur and Variolink II/ExciTE (p = 0.138) or RelyX (p = 0.150). A significant difference was not observed when the laser-treated dentin was conditioned with phosphoric acid and mechanical smoothing. These findings demonstrate that the bond between dentin and ceramic may be stronger after laser irradiation; however, the selection of the adhesive material is an additional factor that affects the bond strength.