Adeziv Sistemlerin Lazer veya Frezle Hazırlanan Minede Mikrokesme Bağlanma Dayanımına Etkisi

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 3, 269 - 276, 23.12.2024

Ece Meral , Meltem Nermin Polan , Alperen Oz , Esra Ergin

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1409751

Abstract

ÖZ
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Er,Cr:YSGG lazer veya geleneksel elmas frez ile prepare edilen mineye farklı adeziv sistemlerin mikro-kesme bağlanma dayanıklılığının (μKBD) değerlendirilmesidir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: 28 adet çürüksüz insan molar dişi uzunlamasına kesilerek 56 örnek elde edildi. Bu dişlerin bukkal veya lingual yüzeyleri daha sonra akrilik blokların içerisine gömüldü. Mine yüzeylerinin preparasyonunda Er,Cr:YSGG lazer ya da geleneksel elmas frez kullanıldı ve her bir dişin orta hattı referans noktası olarak alındı. Mine yüzeylerinin sol yarısı Er,Cr:YSGG lazerle, sağ yarısı ise geleneksel bir elmas frez kullanılarak prepare edildi. Örnekler rastgele dört gruba ayrıldı (n=14): [G1] Üç aşamalı etch&rinse adeziv (Optibond FL, Kerr), [G2] İki aşamalı self-etch adeziv (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray), [G3] Universal adeziv/Etch&Rinse Modu (Prime-and-Bond Universal, Dentsply) ve [G4] Universal-Adeziv/Self-Etch Modu (Prime-and-Bond Universal, Dentsply). Örneklerde lazerle ve frezle hazırlanan yüzeylerin merkezine 0,8 mm çapındaki kompozit silindirler (Harmonize/Kerr) bağlandı. Her gruptan rastgele seçilen bir örneğin adeziv ara yüzü, Taramalı Elektron Mikroskobu altında incelendi. Örneklerin geri kalanı μKBD testine tabi tutuldu. Veriler, İki Yönlü ANOVA kullanılarak değerlendirildi (p=0.05).
Bulgular: Her bir adeziv sistemin μKBD verileri, lazerle ve frezle prepare etme yöntemleri açısından karşılaştırıldığında gruplar arasında anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmadı (p>0.05). Preparasyon metotlarından bağımsız olarak, adeziv sistemler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark gözlenmedi (p>0.05). Farklı adeziv sistemlerinin farklı preparasyon yöntemleriyle etkileşimi, μKBD değerlerinde önemli bir fark oluşturmadı (p>0.05).

Sonuç: Er,Cr:YSGG lazer veya elmas frez ile prepare edilen mine yüzeylerine incelenen adeziv sistemler benzer μSBS değerleri göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Lazer Preparasyonu, Mikro Kesme Bağlanma Dayanıklılığı, Taramalı Elektron Mikroskobu, Üniversal Adeziv

Keywords

Lazer Preparasyonu, Mikro Kesme Bağlanma Dayanıklılığı, Taramalı Elektron Mikroskobu, Üniversal Adeziv

The Influence of Adhesive Systems on Microshear Bond Strength in Bur or Laser-Prepared Enamel

Abstract

ABSTRACT
Background:To assess the microshear bond strength(μSBS) of several adhesive systems on enamel surfaces prepared using either Er,Cr:YSGG laser or conventional diamond bur.

Methods:28 caries-free human molars were longitudinally sectioned, resulting in 56 samples. Buccal or lingual surfaces were embedded in acrylic blocks. Enamel surfaces were prepared using either Er,Cr:YSGG laser or traditional diamond bur, referencing the midline of each tooth. Laser treatment was applied to the left side, while the right half underwent bur treatment. Samples were randomly divided into four groups(n=14):[G1]Optibond FL by Kerr, three-step etch&rinse adhesive; [G2]Clearfil SE Bond by Kuraray, two-step self-etch adhesive; [G3]Prime-and-Bond Universal by Dentsply, universal-adhesive/etch&rinse-mode; and [G4]Prime-and-Bond Universal by Dentsply, universal-adhesive/self-etch-mode. Composite cylinders with a diameter of 0.8 mm(Harmonize/Kerr) were affixed to both the laser-treated and bur-prepared regions at the center of all specimens. The adhesive interface of one randomly chosen representative from each group was analyzed using Scanning Electron Microscope(SEM). The remaining samples were subjected to μSBS testing. Data were subjected to statistical analysis using Two-Way ANOVA(p=0.05).

Results:Upon comparing the μSBS data for each adhesive system, using both laser and bur preparation processes, no statistically significant differences were seen between the groups(p>0.05). Irrespective of the modalities of preparation, the adhesive systems did not display any statistically significant differences(p>0.05).Furthermore, the correlation between various adhesive systems and preparation techniques did not yield a statistically significant variation in μSBS values(p>0.05).

Conclusion:The measured μSBS values of the adhesive systems examined on enamel surfaces that were produced using either Er,Cr:YSGG laser or a diamond bur demonstrated a similarity.

Keywords

Laser preparation, Microshear bond strength, Scanning electron microscopy, Universal adhesive.

References

• 1. Fatma Dilsad OZ, Ergin E, Attar N, Gurgan S. Comparison of laser- and bur-prepared class I cavities restored with two different low-shrinkage composite resins: a randomized, controlled 60-month clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(1):357-68.
• 2. Hibst R. Lasers for Caries Removal and Cavity Preparation: State of the Art and Future Directions. Journal of Oral Laser Applications. 2002;2(4).
• 3. Visuri SR, Walsh JT, Jr., Wigdor HA. Erbium laser ablation of dental hard tissue: effect of water cooling. Lasers Surg Med. 1996;18(3):294-300.
• 4. Marotti J, Geraldo-Martins VR, Bello-Silva MS, de Paula Eduardo C, Apel C, Gutknecht N. Influence of etching with erbium, chromium: yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser on microleakage of class V restoration. Lasers Med Sci. 2010;25(3):325-9.
• 5. Moldes VL, Capp CI, Navarro RS, Matos AB, Youssef MN, Cassoni A. In vitro microleakage of composite restorations prepared by Er: YAG/Er,Cr:YSGG lasers and conventional drills associated with two adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent. 2009;11(3):221-9.
• 6. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek B. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005;84(2):118-32.
• 7. Suzuki T, Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, Tsujimoto A, Endo H, Erickson RL, et al. Influence of Etching Mode on Enamel Bond Durability of Universal Adhesive Systems. Oper Dent. 2016;41(5):520-30.
• 8. Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U. Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent. 2014;42(7):800-7.
• 9. Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(7):765-76.
• 10. Pires CW, Lenzi TL, Soares FZM, Rocha RO. Bonding of universal adhesive system to enamel surrounding real-life carious cavities. Braz Oral Res. 2019;33: e038.
• 11. Kantola S. Laser-induced effects on tooth structure. IV. A study of changes in the calcium and phosphorus contents in dentine by electron probe microanalysis. Acta Odontol Scand. 1972;30(4):463-74.
• 12. Kantola S. Laser-induced effects on tooth structure. VII. X-ray diffraction study of dentine exposed to a CO2 laser. Acta Odontol Scand. 1973;31(6):381-6.
• 13. Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Yamada Y, Murakami Y, Matsumoto K. Microleakage of composite resin restoration in cavities prepared by Er, Cr: YSGG laser irradiation and etched bur cavities in primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2002;26(3):263-8.
• 14. Kohara EK, Hossain M, Kimura Y, Matsumoto K, Inoue M, Sasa R. Morphological and microleakage studies of the cavities prepared by Er: YAG laser irradiation in primary teeth. J Clin Laser Med Surg. 2002;20(3):141-7.
• 15. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-91.
• 16. Go EJ, Shin Y, Park JW. Evaluation of the Microshear Bond Strength of MDP-containing and Non-MDP-containing Self-adhesive Resin Cement on Zirconia Restoration. Oper Dent. 2019;44(4):379-85.
• 17. Agostini FG, Kaaden C, Powers JM. Bond strength of self-etching primers to enamel and dentin of primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2001;23(6):481-6.
• 18. Ateyah NZ, Elhejazi AA. Shear bond strengths and microleakage of four types of dentin adhesive materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2004;5(1):63-73.
• 19. Phrukkanon S, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Effect of cross-sectional surface area on bond strengths between resin and dentin. Dent Mater. 1998;14(2):120-8.
• 20. Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LH, Soares CJ, Yamagawa J. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of "micro" bond strength test methods. Dent Mater. 2010;26(2): e50-62.
• 21. Cardoso MV, De Munck J, Coutinho E, Ermis RB, Van Landuyt K, de Carvalho RC, Van Meerbeek B. Influence of Er, Cr: YSGG laser treatment on microtensile bond strength of adhesives to enamel. Oper Dent. 2008;33(4):448-55.
• 22. Kilinc E, Roshkind DM, Antonson SA, Antonson DE, Hardigan PC, Siegel SC, Thomas JW. Thermal safety of Er: YAG and Er, Cr: YSGG lasers in hard tissue removal. Photomed Laser Surg. 2009;27(4):565-70.
• 23. Matsumoto K, Hossain M, Hossain MM, Kawano H, Kimura Y. Clinical assessment of Er, Cr: YSGG laser application for cavity preparation. J Clin Laser Med Surg. 2002;20(1):17-21.
• 24. Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Yamada Y, Kimura Y, Matsumoto N, 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(4):155-9.
• 25. Noerpuspita P, Krejci I, Bortolotto T. Marginal adaptation of two-step self-etch versus universal adhesives for Class V restorations: Effect of Er: YAG laser vs. bur prepared cavities. Am J Dent. 2024;37(1):29-34.
• 26. Anton YOCI, Bortolotto T, DiBella E, Krejci I. Influence of 9.3 microm CO2 and Er: YAG laser preparations on marginal adaptation of adhesive mixed Class V composite restorations with one component universal adhesive. Am J Dent. 2021;34(1):31-8.
• 27. Heyder M, Sigusch B, Hoder-Przyrembel C, Schuetze J, Kranz S, Reise M. Clinical effects of laser-based cavity preparation on class V resin-composite fillings. PLoS One. 2022;17(6): e0270312.
• 28. Shakya VK, Bhattacharjee A, Singh RK, Yadav RK, Singh VK, Singhai A. Shear bond strengths of bur or Er: YAG laser prepared dentine to composite resin with or without low-level laser conditioning: an in vitro study. Lasers Med Sci. 2023;38(1):161.
• 29. Dunn WJ, Davis JT, Bush AC. Shear bond strength and SEM evaluation of composite bonded to Er: YAG laser-prepared dentin and enamel. Dent Mater. 2005;21(7):616-24.
• 30. Verma M, Kumari P, Gupta R, Gill S, Gupta A. Comparative evaluation of surface topography of tooth prepared using erbium, chromium: Yttrium, scandium, gallium, garnet laser and bur and its clinical implications. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2015;15(1):23-8.
• 31. Ayar MK. The durability of adhesion to Er, Cr: YSGG laser-irradiated enamel. Laser Ther. 2018;27(2):124-30.
• 32. Lin S, Caputo AA, Eversole LR, Rizoiu I. Topographical characteristics and shear bond strength of tooth surfaces cut with a laser-powered hydrokinetic system. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82(4):451-5.
• 33. Kasraei S, Yarmohammadi E, Ghazizadeh MV. Microshear Bond Strength of OptiBond All-in-One Self-adhesive Agent to Er: YAG Laser Treated Enamel After Thermocycling and Water Storage. J Lasers Med Sci. 2016;7(3):152-8.
• 34. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater. 2005;21(9):864-81.
• 35. Ceballo L, Toledano M, Osorio R, Tay FR, Marshall GW. Bonding to Er-YAG-laser-treated dentin. J Dent Res. 2002;81(2):119-22.
• 36. Usumez S, Orhan M, Usumez A. Laser etching of enamel for direct bonding with an Er, Cr: YSGG hydrokinetic laser system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122(6):649-56.
• 37. Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G, Tenore G, Romeo U, Migliau G. Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2017;8(1):1-17.
• 38. Jaberi Ansari Z, Fekrazad R, Feizi S, Younessian F, Kalhori KA, Gutknecht N. The effect of an Er, Cr: YSGG laser on the micro-shear bond strength of composite to the enamel and dentin of human permanent teeth. Lasers Med Sci. 2012;27(4):761-5.
• 39. Turkmen C, Sazak-Ovecoglu H, Gunday M, Gungor G, Durkan M, Oksuz M. Shear bond strength of composite bonded with three adhesives to Er, Cr: YSGG laser-prepared enamel. Quintessence Int. 2010;41(6): e119-24.
• 40. Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Perdigao J. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25(1):55-69.
• 41. Perdigao J, Loguercio AD. Universal or Multi-Mode Adhesives: Why and How? J Adhes Dent. 2014;16(2):193-4.
• 42. Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Yamada Y, Suzuki N, Murakami Y, Matsumoto K. Analysis of surface roughness of enamel and dentin after Er, Cr: YSGG laser irradiation. J Clin Laser Med Surg. 2001;19(6):297-303.
• 43. AlQussier A, Awliya W. Effect of Erbium, Chromium-doped: Yttrium, Scandium, Gallium and Garnet Laser Tooth Preparation on Gap Formation of Universal Adhesive Bonded to Enamel and Dentin: A Micro-CT and SEM Study. J Lasers Med Sci. 2022;13: e14.
• 44. Martinez-Insua A, Da Silva Dominguez L, Rivera FG, Santana-Penin UA. Differences in bonding to acid-etched or Er: YAG-laser-treated enamel and dentin surfaces. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84(3):280-8.
• 45. Wanderley RL, Monghini EM, Pecora JD, Palma-Dibb RG, Borsatto MC. Shear bond strength to enamel of primary teeth irradiated with varying Er: YAG laser energies and SEM examination of the surface morphology: an in vitro study. Photomed Laser Surg. 2005;23(3):260-7.
• 46. Cecchini RC, Zezell DM, de Oliveira E, de Freitas PM, Eduardo Cde P. Effect of Er: YAG laser on enamel acid resistance: morphological and atomic spectrometry analysis. Lasers Surg Med. 2005;37(5):366-72.
• 47. Kim JH, Kwon OW, Kim HI, Kwon YH. Effectiveness of an Er: YAG laser in etching the enamel surface for orthodontic bracket retention. Dent Mater J. 2005;24(4):596-602.
• 48. Erkmen Almaz M, Ulusoy NB, Akbay Oba A, Erdem U, Dogan M. Thermal, morphological, and spectral changes after Er, Cr: YSGG laser irradiation at low fluences on primary teeth for caries prevention. Microsc Res Tech. 2021;84(1):150-9.