Farklı Adeziv Sistemlerin ve Kompozitlerin Geleneksel Yöntem ve ER:YAG Lazer ile Hazırlanmış Sınıf V Kavitelerde Mikrosızıntı Açısından Araştırılması

Year 2025, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 98 - 108, 29.08.2025

Sena Kargı , Emre Özel

https://doi.org/10.21306/dishekimligi.1682505

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, geleneksel yöntem ve Er:YAG lazerle hazırlanmış sınıf V kavitelerde farklı adeziv sistemler ve kompozitlerin neden olduğu mikrosızıntıyı incelemektir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çürüme ve restorasyonu olmayan 48 daimi azı dişi çıkarılarak, artakalan dokular temizlendikten sonra distile suda muhafaza edildi. Altı dişten oluşan sekiz grup oluşturuldu; Grup-1: Frez hazırlığı (Bp)+ CLEARFIL Universal Bond Quick (UBQ)+CLEARFIL MAJESTY ES-2 Classic (ME2); Grup-2: (Bp)+Bisco Universal PrimerTM (UP)+(ME2); Grup-3: (Bp)+(UBQ)+Ceram X SphereTECTM (CX); Grup-4: (Bp)+(UP)+(CX); Grup-5: Lazer hazırlığı (Lp)+(UBQ)+(ME2); Grup-6: (Lp)+(UP)+(ME2); Grup-7: (Lp)+(UBQ)+(CX); Grup-8: (Lp)+(UP)+(CX). Tüm dişler 1500 kez termal döngüye (5–550C) tabi tutuldu. Daha sonra %0,5 bazik füçsin içerisinde 24 saat bekletildi. Boya penetrasyonu, iki gözlemci tarafından hazırlanan skor tablosuna göre stereo mikroskop altında sınıf V kavite uzunlamasına kesitlerinde, adeziv sistem-dentin ara yüzeyinde değerlendirildi. Adeziv materyal-dentin ara yüzeyleri ve hibrit tabakanın yapısı Taramalı Elektron Mikroskobu (SEM) analizi ile incelendi. İstatistiksel analizler Mann-Whitney U testi, Kruskal Wallis Tek-Yönlü Varyans Analizi ve Dunn'ın çoklu karşılaştırma testi ile değerlendirildi (p<0.05).
Bulgular: Tüm gruplarda servikal yüzeylerdeki mikrosızıntı skorlarının oklüzal yüzeylerden daha yüksek olduğu belirlendi. Ayrıca, kavite hazırlama yönteminin restorasyonların oklüzal yüzeylerindeki mikrosızıntı değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yaratmadığı (p>0.05) belirlendi. Adeziv yöntemin mikrosızıntı açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir sonuç vermediği gözlemlendi (p>0.05).
Sonuç: Clearfil Majesty ES 2 kompozitin mikrosızıntı açısından daha başarılı olduğu gözlemlendi. Clearfil Majesty ES 2 kompozit sınıf V kavite restorasyonu için tercih edilebilir. Lazer ile hazırlanan kavitelerde adeziv sistemlerin performansını belirlemek için daha fazla laboratuvar ve klinik çalışmaya ihtiyaç vardır.

Keywords

Mikrosızıntı , Üniversal adesiv , Er:YAG lazer , Sınıf V kavite

INVESTIGATION OF DIFFERENT ADHESIVE SYSTEMS AND COMPOSITES IN TERMS OF MICROLEAKAGE IN CONVENTIONAL METHOD AND ER:YAG LASER PREPARED CLASS V CAVITIES

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to examine the microleakage caused by different adhesive systems and composites in class V cavities prepared with traditional method and Er:YAG laser.
Material and Methods: 48 permanent molars without decay and restoration were removed and kept in distilled water after residual tissue were removed. Eight groups were formed with six teeth in each group; Group-1: Bur preparation (Bp)+ CLEARFIL Universal Bond Quick (UBQ)+CLEARFIL MAJESTY ES-2 Classic (ME2); Group-2: (Bp)+Bisco Universal PrimerTM (UP)+(ME2); Group-3: (Bp)+(UBQ)+Ceram X SphereTECTM (CX); Group-4: (Bp)+(UP)+(CX); Group-5: Laser preparation (Lp)+(UBQ)+(ME2); Group-6: (Lp)+(UP)+(ME2); Group-7: (Lp)+(UBQ)+(CX); Group-8: (Lp)+(UP)+(CX). All teeth were thermocycled 1500 times (5–550C). Then it was kept in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours . The dye penetration at the adhesive system-dentin interface in longitudinal sectioned class V cavities was evaluated under stereo microscopy according to the score table prepared by two observers. The adhesive material-dentin interfaces and the structure of the hybrid layer were examined by Scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. Statistical analyzes were tested with Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance and Dunn's multiple comparison (p<0.05).
Results: Microleakage scores on the cervical surfaces were higher than the occlusal surfaces in all groups. In addition, it was determined that the cavity preparation method did not create a statistically significant difference between the microleakage values on the occlusal surfaces of the restorations (p>0.05). It was observed that the adhesion method did not present a statistically significant result in terms of microleakage (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Clearfil Majesty ES 2 composite was observed to be more successful in terms of microleakage. Clearfil Majesty ES 2 composite can be preferred for restoration of class V cavities. More laboratory and clinical studies are needed to determine the performance of adhesive systems in cavities prepared with laser.

Keywords

Microleakage , Universal adhesive , Er:YAG laser , Class V cavity

References

• 1. Güler Ç, Bayar F. Farklı tipteki restoratif cam iyonomer simanların mikrosızıntı üzerine ısı uygulanmasının etkisi. Selcuk Dent J. 2020;7:233- 239.
• 2. Kasraei S, Azarsina M, Majidi S. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior composites with and whitout liner using two step etch and reines and self-etch dentin adhesive system. Oper Dent. 2011;36:213-221.
• 3. Zhang Y, Chen W, Zhang J, Li Y. Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20:269.
• 4. Mosharrafian S, Heidari A, Rahbar P. Microleakage of two bulk fill and one conventional composite in Class II restorations of primary posterior teeth. J Dent (Tehran). 2017;14:123-131.
• 5. Kidd EA. Mikroleakage: A review. J Dent. 1976;4:199-206.
• 6. Özel E, Tuna EB, Firatli S, Firatli E. Comparison of total-etch, self-etch, and selective etching techniques on class V composite restorations prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur: a scanning electron microscopy study. Microsc Res Tech. 2016;79:998-1004.
• 7. Yıkılgan İ, Akgül S, Kuşoğlu A, Bala O, Ömürlü H, Türköz M. Farklı kaide materyali kullanımının sınıf V restorasyonların mikrosızıntısı üzerine etkisi. Acta Odontol Turc. 2017;34:31-37.
• 8. Hamouda IM, Samra NR. Microtensile bond strength of etch and rinse vs self-etch adhesive systems. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011;4:461- 466.
• 9. Tuna EB, Ozel E, Kasimoglu Y, Firatli E. Investigation of the Er:YAG laser and diamond bur cavity preparation on the marginal microleakage of Class V cavities restored with different flowable composites. Microsc Res Tech. 2017;80:530-536.
• 10. Brännström M, Glantz PO, Nordenvall KJ. The effect of some cleaning solutions on the morphology of dentin prepared in different ways: an in-vivo study. ASDC J Dent Child. 1979;46:291-295.
• 11. Cardoso MV, Coutinho E, Ermis RB, Poitevin A, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J. Influence of dentin cavity surface finishing on micro-tensile bond strength of adhesives. Dent Mater. 2008;24:492-501.
• 12. Malekafzali B, Asnaashari M, Javadi F. Comparison of marginal microleakage of flowable composite restorations in primary canine teeth prepared with highspeed diamond bur, Er:YAG laser and Er,Cr:YSGG laser. Laser Ther. 2017;26:195-202.
• 13. Coluzzi DJ. Fundamentals of dental lasers: science and instruments. Dent Clin North Am. 2004;48:751-770.
• 14. Mir M, Meister J, Franzen R, Sabounchi SS, Lampert F, Gutknecht N. Influence of water-layer thickness on Er:YAG laser ablation of enamel of bovine anterior teeth. Lasers Med Sci. 2008;23:451-457.
• 15. Watanabe H, Ishikawa I, Suzuki M, Hasegawa K. Clinical assessments of the Erbium:YAG laser for soft tissue surgery and scaling. J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1996;14:67-75.
• 16. De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Yudhira R, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Micro-tensile bond strength of two adhesives to Erbium:YAG-lased vs bur-cut enamel and dentin. Eur J Oral Sci. 2002;110:322-329.
• 17. Bahadır HS, Bağlar S, Bulut AC, Karadağ G. Farklı kavite preparasyon yöntemi kullanılarak prepare edilen sınıf V kavitelerinin farklı cam iyonomer simanlarla restore edilerek mikrosızıntısının değerlendirilmesi. Turk J Clin Lab. 2019;10:301-309.
• 18. García Marí L, Climent Gil A, Llena Puy C. In vitro evaluation of microleakage in Class II composite restorations: High-viscosity bulk-fill vs conventional composites. Dent Mater J. 2019;38:721-727.
• 19. Gogna R, Jagadis S, Shashikal K. A comparative in vitro study of microleakage by a radioactive isotope and compressive strength of three nanofilled composite resin restorations. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14:128-131.
• 20. Singh P, Tyagi S, Mahendra M, Diwedi V. Evaluation of microleakage in class V composite restoration by using flowable composite and resin modified glass ionomer as liners. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res. 2020;8:26-30.
• 21. Sabbah A. Microleakage of cavity class V restored by glass ionomer restorations in primary molars conditioned by Er,Cr:YSGG laser versus conventional method (an in vitro study). Egypt Dent J. 2020;66:781- 788.
• 22. Ferracane JL. Models of caries formation around dental composite restorations. J Dent Res. 2017;96:364-371.
• 23. Owens BM, Phebus JG, Johnson WW. Evaluation of the marginal integrity of a bioactive restorative material. Gen Dent. 2018;66:32-36.
• 24. Pfeifer CSC, Braga RR, Cardoso PEC. Influence of cavity dimensions, insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of Class V restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137:197-202.
• 25. Mutluay AT, Mutluay M. Effects of different disinfection methods on microleakage of giomer restorations. Eur J Dent. 2019;13:569-573.
• 26. Bertrand M-F, Semez G, Leforestier E, MullerBolla M, Nammour S, Rocca J-P. Er:YAG laser cavity preparation and composite resin bonding with a single-component adhesive system: relationship between shear bond strength and microleakage. Lasers Surg Med. 2006;38:615-623.
• 27. Özel E, Tuna EB, Firatli E. The effects of cavityfilling techniques on microleakage in class II resin restorations prepared with Er:YAG laser and diamond bur: a scanning electron microscopy study. Scanning. 2016;38:389-395.
• 28. Özsevik A, Sürmelioğlu D, Tosun S, Bacaksız B, Şirin Karaarslan E. The effect of silane content on microleakage of the adhesive systems. Int Dent Sci J. 2015;1:13-19.
• 29. Motevaselian F, Yassine E, Mirzaee M, Kharazifard MJ, Heydari S, Shafiee M. In vitro microleakage of class V composite restorations in use of three adhesive systems. J Islam Dent Assoc Iran. 2016;28:14-19.
• 30. Delmé KI, De Moor RJ. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of enamel and dentin surfaces after Er:YAG laser preparation and laser conditioning. Photomed Laser Surg. 2007;25:393- 401.
• 31. Chaitra TR, Subba Reddy VV, Devarasa GM, Ravishankar TL. Microleakage and SEM analysis of flowable resin used as a sealant following three fissure preparation techniques: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;35:277-282.