Marginal Microleakage of Glass Ionomer-Based Restorations After Conventional Cavity Preparation and Er: YAG Laser Irradiation

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the microleakage of glass ionomer restorations (GIC) in Class V cavities prepared with both conventional and Er: YAG laser techniques. Methods: Twenty teeth were used. Standard Class V cavities (4mm wide,3m high,3mm deep) were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of teeth. All teeth were randomly divided into four groups. In Groups II and IV, cavities were prepared by Er: YAG laser, and in Groups I and III cavities were conventionally prepared with a diamond bur. Groups I and II were then restored with conventional GIC (Ketac,3MEspe, U.S.A.).Groups III and IV were restored with high viscosity GIC with resin coating (EQUIA, GC, Tokyo, Japan). Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24h. Teeth were then subjected to thermo-cycling (500 cycles,5°C-55°C). All teeth were exposed to 50.000 cycles in a chewing simulator. Specimens were stained with 0.5% aqueous basic fuchsin dye and sectioned buccolingually. Dye penetration was scored under a stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis One-Way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: While the highest microleakage scores were observed in the group prepared with Er: YAG laser and restored with conventional GIC the lowest microleakage scores were observed in the group prepared with Er: YAG laser and restored with high viscosity GIC. When cavities prepared with Er: YAG laser or conventional method were restored with high viscosity GIC, no statistically significant difference was found between them (p> 0.05). Conclusion: High viscosity GIC can be preferred as a restorative material in the restorations of Class V cavities prepared using both conventional and Er: YAG lasers.

Keywords

• Glass ionomer
• microleakage
• high viscosity glass ionomer
• Er:YAG laser

References

1. Referans1 Anusavice KJ, Kincheloe JE. Comparison of pain associated with mechanical and chemomechanical removal of caries. J Dent Res 1987;66: 1680-3.
2. Referans2. Kirzioglu Z, Gurbuz T, Yilmaz Y. Clinical evaluation of chemomechanical and mechanical caries removal: status of the restorations at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Clin Oral Investig. 2007;11: 69.
3. Referans3. Corona SAM, Borsatto MC, Pécora JD, De Sa Rocha R, Ramos T, PALMA‐Dibb RG. Assessing microleakage of different class V restorations after Er: YAG laser and bur preparation. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:1008-14.
4. Referans4. Synarellis A, Kouros P, Koulaouzidou E, Strakas D, Koliniotou-Koumpia E. In vitro microleakage of class v composite restorations prepared by Er, Cr: YSGG laser and carbide bur. Balkan JDentMed 2017;21:24-31.
5. Referans5. Quo BC, Drummond JL, Koerber A, Fadavi S, Punwani I. Glass ionomer microleakage from preparations by an Er/YAG laser or a high-speed handpiece. J Dent 2002;30:141-6.
6. Referans6. Hatton P, Hurrell-Gillingham K, Brook I. Biocompatibility of glass-ionomer bone cements. J Dent 2006;34: 598-601.
7. Referans7. Shahabi S, Chiniforush N, Juybanpoor N. Morphological changes of human dentin after erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er: YAG) and carbon dioxide (CO2) laser irradiation and acid-etch technique: a scanning electron microscopic (SEM) evaluation. J Lasers MedSci 2013;4: 48.
8. Referans8. Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS, Dos Santos Jr J. Fundamentals of operative dentistry: a contemporary approach: Quintessence Pub. Chicago, 2006.

9. Referans9. Wilder-Smith PB, Choi S, Kurosaki T,. Parameter dependence of marginal microleakage in Er: YAG-laser-ablated and-modified dental preparations. Lasers in Dentistry IV; International Society for Optics and Photonics.,1998.
10. Referans10. Miyazaki M, Moore BK, Onose H. Effect of surface coatings on flexural properties of glass ionomers. Eur JOral, 1996;104: 600-4.
11. Referans11. Diem VTK, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, Phuong LH, Khanh ND. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18: 753-9.
12. Referans12. Crowley C, Doyle J, Towler M, Hill R, Hampshire S. The influence of capsule geometry and cement formulation on the apparent viscosity of dental cements. J Dentistry 2006;34: 566-73.
13. Referans13. Davidson CL. Advances in glass-ionomer cements. JAppOral 2006;14:3-9.
14. Referans14. Friedl K, Hiller K-A, Friedl K-H. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer-based restoration system: a retrospective cohort study. Dent Mater., 2011;27(10):1031-7.
15. Referans15. Gurgan S, Kutuk Z, Ergin E, Oztas S, Cakir F. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent 2015;40:134-43.
16. Referans16. Osborne‐Smith K, Burke F, Wilson N. The aetiology of the non‐carious cervical lesion. Int Dent J 1999;49:139-43.
17. Referans17. Bollu IP, Hari A, Thumu J, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between nano-ionomer, giomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities-CLSM study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10: 66-70.
18. Referans18. Hazra A, Gogtay N. Biostatistics series module 3:Comparing groups: Numerical variables. Indian J Dermatol 2016;61: 251.
19. Referans19. Aljdaimi A, Devlin H, Dickinson M. Effect of the Er: YAG laser on the shear bond strength of conventional glass ionomer and Biodentine™ to dentine. Eur J Dent,2018;12: 380.
20. Referans20. Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Yamada Y, Kimura Y, Nakamura G, Matsumoto K. Ablation depths and morphological changes in human enamel and dentin after Er: YAG laser irradiation with or without water mist. J Clin Laser Med Surg 1999;17: 105-9.
21. Referans21. Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Ajlal S. Applications of light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (lasers) for restorative dentistry. Med Princ Pract 2016;25: 201-11.
22. Referans22. Delmé KI, Deman PJ, De Bruyne MA, Nammour S, De Moor RJ. Microleakage of glass ionomer formulations after erbium: yttrium–aluminium–garnet laser preparation. Lasers Med Sci 2010;25: 171-80.
23. Referans23. Alani AH, Toh CG.Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. OperDent 1997;22:173-85.
24. Referans24. Kidd EA. Microleakage: a review. J Dentistry 1976;4:199-206.
25. Referans25. Vicente A, Ortiz AJ, Parra PL, Calvo JL, Chiva F. Microleakage in Class V composite and compomer restorations following exposure to a colutory prescribed for the treatment of xerostomy. Odontology 2011;99: 49-54.
26. Referans26. Quo BC, Drummond JL, Koerber A, Fadavi S, Punwani I. Glass ionomer microleakage from preparations by an Er/YAG laser or a high-speed handpiece. J Dent 2002;30: 141-6.
27. Referans27. Peker S, Giray FE, Durmus B, Bekiroglu N, Kargül B, Ozcan M. Microleakage in class V cavities prepared using conventional method versus Er: YAG laser restored with glass ionomer cement or resin composite. JAdhesSciTechnol 2017;31: 509-19.
28. Referans28. Hossain Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Yamada Y, Kimura Y, Matsumoto, Matsumoto K. Effects of Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation in human enamel and dentin: ablation and morphological studies. J Clin Laser Med Surg 1999;17; 155-159
29. Referans29. Baghalian A, Nakhjavani YB, Hooshmand T, Motahhary P, Bahramian H. Microleakage of Er: YAG laser and dental bur prepared cavities in primary teeth restored with different adhesive restorative materials. Lasers Med Sci 2013;28:1453-60.
30. Referans30. Saito S, Tosaki S, Hirota K. Characteristic of glass-ionomer cements. In: Davidson CL, MjöR IA, eds. Advances in glass-ionomer cements. Berlin. Quintessence Publishing Co 1999.