Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 396
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 216-219
Assessing microleakage of composite restorations in class V cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser irradiation or diamond bur


1 Department of Restorative, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Dental Materials School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 PhD Candidate of Laser Dentistry, Laser Research Center of Dentistry, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Tehran, Iran

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission16-Oct-2013
Date of Decision25-Jan-2014
Date of Acceptance14-Feb-2014
Date of Web Publication2-May-2014
 

   Abstract 

Introduction: The aim of this study was to make a comparison between microleakage of conventionally restored class V cavities using bur and acid etchant and, the ones prepared and conditioned by Er:YAG laser.
Materials and Methods: 30 recently extracted intact caries and filling free human permanent molars were used for this study. Then, Cold cure acrylic resin was used to seal the apices. The samples were randomly assigned to 5 groups of six each. Class V cavities were prepared one on buccal and one on lingual surface of each sample. Group 1: cavity preparation by diamond bur and turbine + acid etch, Group 2: cavity preparation by Er:YAG laser + acid etch, Group 3: cavity preparation by Er:YAG laser + Laser etching, Group 4: cavity preparation by diamond bur and turbine + laser etching, Group 5: cavity preparation by Er:YAG laser with no conditioning procedure. The cavities restored with restorative composite resin. Samples were then immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. The data were then analyzed using Wilcoxon signed ranks test and Kruskal-Wallis statistical tests.
Results: The Kruskal Wallis test showed a significant difference (P < 0.05) between enamel and cementum margin microleakage, while the higher microleakage was related to the cementum margin of restorations.
Conclusion: There was no significant difference in evaluating microleakeage degree of cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser and diamond bur.

Keywords: Cavity; Er:YAG laser; microleakage

How to cite this article:
Arami S, Shahabi S, Tabatabaie M, Chiniforush N, Morshedi E, Torabi S. Assessing microleakage of composite restorations in class V cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser irradiation or diamond bur. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:216-9

How to cite this URL:
Arami S, Shahabi S, Tabatabaie M, Chiniforush N, Morshedi E, Torabi S. Assessing microleakage of composite restorations in class V cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser irradiation or diamond bur. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Aug 12];17:216-9. Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2014/17/3/216/131778

   Introduction Top


Recently there has been an increasing debate on the use of laser irradiation for preparing cavities and conditioning enamel and dentine as an alternative for routine chemical acid etching. [1],[2] Despite the improvements achieved in decreasing composite resin shrinkage, this is still an important factor reducing success rate of direct composite fillings, [3] so it is important to obtain a strong bond between restoration and dental hard tissues by surface pretreatment. [4]

The erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Er:YAG) laser energy is highly absorbed by water, which is the well-absorbed energy by hydroxyapatite and therefore it is more effective than any other laser system in removing tooth hard tissues, [5],[6] with minimal thermal damage and consequently one of Er:YAG laser first indications is preparing cavity for composite resin restoration [1] and surface pretreatment. So the efficacy of Er:YAG laser in dental procedures such as caries removal, preparing cavities, [5],[7] and modifying surface specifications has been studied by many investigators; [8],[9] and in the last years many studies are done around the microleakage of laser prepared cavities. [10],[11]

But the effect of laser irradiation on surface characteristics is not still completely revealed if it beneficially alters surface specifications or not, and needs more investigations to show if it results in increasing or decreasing the microleakage in comparison to conventional chemical acid etching procedures. [12]

The aim of this study was to make a comparison between microleakage of conventionally restored class V cavities using bur and acid etchant and the ones prepared and conditioned by Er:YAG laser. Besides, Er:YAG laser showed advantages such as minimal need for local anesthesia, [13],[14] producing rough surface with no demineralization, sterilizing surface of dentin and no smear layer production. [15]


   Materials and methods Top


Thirty recently extracted intact caries and filling free human permanent molars were used for this study. The teeth surfaces were cleaned under tap water and any residual tissue removed by means of a sickle scaler (204s, Hu-Friedy Chicago, USA). The specimens were then pumiced and stored in distilled water at 4°C. Before any manipulation, samples were placed in 0.5% chloramine solution for a week at 4°C. Cold cure acrylic resin was used to seal the apices to prevent dye penetration through the pulp chamber during the study.

The samples were randomly assigned to five groups of six in each. Class V cavities were prepared one on buccal and one on lingual surface of each sample resulting 12 class V cavities in each group. Cavity specifications were the same in all specimens (3 mm width, 4 mm length, and 1.5 mm depth). Coronal margins of cavity were located on enamel and gingival margins on cementum.

Group characteristics were as following:

Group 1: Using a diamond bur (008) (Teezkavan, Tehran, Iran) and a turbine and conditioning with 37.5% phosphoric acid (Kerr, Italy).

Group 2: Using Er:YAG laser (Smart 2940 plus, DEKA, Italy) accompanied by water and air spray and conditioning with acid etch.

Group 3: Using Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation and conditioning.

Group 4: Using a diamond bur (008) and a turbine and conditioning with Er:YAG laser.

Group 5: Using Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation with no conditioning procedure.

The laser parameters for cavity preparation were as following: Energy of 450 mJ, frequency of 10 Hz, and output power of 4.5 W for enamel removal; energy of 300 mJ, frequency of 10 Hz, and output power of 3 W for dentine and cementum removal; and the parameters for surface conditioning was energy of 50 mJ, frequency of 10 Hz, and output power of 0.5 W.

After rinsing for 30 s, each cavity was treated with resin adhesive system (Kerr, Optibond Solo Plus, Italy) following manufacture's instruction. The adhesive system used is (5 th generation ternary solvent: Acetone, water, and ethanol) one component photoactivated bonding agent. This was light cured for 20 s followed by 2 s gentle air drying. The cavities then restored incrementally with restorative composite resin (Kerr, Premise, Italy). Each layer with 2 mm thickness light cured for 40 s.

After 24 h of storing restored samples in distilled water at 25°C, restorations were accurately polished with Soflex polishing discs (3 M Dental Products, USA).

The specimens were then thermocycled for 500 cycles between 5 and 55°C through water baths with a 20 s dwell time in each. All tooth surfaces were coated with two layers of nail varnish leaving 1 mm wide border, around restoration margins. Samples were then immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 24 h.

To visualize the extent of dye penetration, the teeth were bisected into two equal longitudinal buccal and palatal/lingual halves by means of a low speed air cooled diamond disc. The sectioned samples evaluated using a light microscope (Olympus CX 31, Olympus America Inc) at ×30 magnification.

The microleakage evaluation based on degree of dye penetration was scored via a graded qualitative scale under a blinded manner [16] [Table 1].
Table 1: Qualitative dye penetration scale

Click here to view


The data were then analyzed (Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 16) using Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Kruskal-Wallis statistical tests.


   Results Top


To assess the microleakage using dye penetration technique in enamel and cementum margins of restorations separately and also to compare these two groups with each other, results were categorized into two groups, enamel and cementum [Table 2] and [Table 3].
Table 2: Microleakage results in enamel margin of restorations

Click here to view
Table 3: Microleakage results in cementum margin of restorations

Click here to view


Test results in enamel margin of restorations (coronal to cementoenamel junction (CEJ))

In Group 1, dye penetrated through floor of cavities in three of 12 restorations, through axial dentine walls in four of them, and only in one restoration dye penetration limited to enamel. There was no dye penetration in the remaining four restorations.

In Group 2, dye penetrated through floor of cavities in five restorations and only in one sample dye penetration limited to enamel. There were no dye penetrations in six samples.

In Group 3, in four samples dye reached to floor of cavities, in two restorations reached to axial dentine walls, and in six fillings dye penetrated only through enamel.

In Group 4, dye penetrated through floor of cavities in four samples and in the eight remaining restorations dye penetrated only through enamel margins.

In Group 5, only in one restoration dye reached up to floor of cavity, in four of restorations dye penetrated through dentine axial walls, and dye penetration was seen only through enamel in the rest of restorations.

Test results in cementum margin of restorations (apical to CEJ)

In none of five groups there was not any restoration scoring '0' or '1'. But in Groups 1 and 5 the results were the same; in nine restorations dye penetrated up to the floor of cavities and in the three remaining dye penetration was seen through axial dentine walls.

The results were also the same in Groups 2 and 3; while dye penetrated through floor of cavities in 10 restorations and it penetrated through axial dentine walls in the rest of restorations.

In Group 4, dye penetration to the floor of cavities was seen in all of the restorations.

The Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference (P < 0.05) between enamel and cementum margin microleakage, while the higher microleakage was related to the cementum margin of restorations. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no significant difference between microleakage of five groups neither in enamel or cementum margin.


   Discussion Top


The aim of this study was to make a comparison between the microleakage of cavities which were prepared by Er:YAG laser or diamond bur and followed by two different acid or laser conditioning techniques. The present study used the common standardized dye penetration method used in the microleakage studies.

It is known that the microleakage occurred in cavities with cementum margins located on root surface is a concerning fact affecting class II and V composite restorations. [16]

Palma Dibb et al., [17] used different adhesive systems in cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser and regardless of the material used, showed higher microleakage in cervical margins which were located on cementum and dentine in comparison with the enamel margins. This higher microleakage values seen in cervical margins may be related to the lower ability of hybrid layer formation on cementum and is also related to technique sensitivity of bonding to dentine in comparison with bonding to enamel. [15] The other factor resulting in higher leakage seen at cervical margins may because of the lack of dentinal tubules in the first 100 mm of cervical margins and higher organic content of the dentine. [18] Kimyai et al., [19] also showed higher microleakage degree in gingival margins rather than occlusal margins, while using three different adhesive systems in cavities prepared by means of erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser; whereas, Kimyai et al., and Moldes et al., showed lower microleakage level through cervical margins when using self-etched adhesive system rather than etch and rinse two step (total etch) in class V cavities prepared by means of Er,Cr:YSGG [19],[20] and Er:YAG lasers; they showed no significant difference in microleakage of enamel margins when using these two different adhesive systems. So, in the present study the same adhesive system (total etch) was used for all groups to eliminate the effect of bonding system as a confounding factor.

There are different reasons introduced causing microleakage, including the marginal gap at the tooth-restoration interface and alteration of interfacial pressure. This pressure alteration is because of difference in thermal expansion coefficient of the tooth structures and the restorative material shrinkage. [10],[21] In the present study, specimens were thermocycled for 500 periods between 5 and 55°C to simulate the thermal changes taking place in oral environment resulted in gap formation at tooth-restoration interface.

Although acid etching of enamel margins significantly reduces the composite resin restoration microleakage, [21] there are no exact similar findings for acid etching of dentin for microleakage reduction when margins of restoration are located in dentin. [22]

On the other hand, acid etching of dentine eliminates smear layer and alters the surface topography which is helpful for mechanical retention and consequently may result in less gap formation and microleakage. [23]

During acid etching of dentin, peritubular dentin is mostly etched and produces cone-shaped openings through dentin tubules and this will let the restorative composite resin pull out due to its shrinkage. [24]

Both peri- and intertubular dentine demineralize during acid etching of dentin results in collagen exposure. This demineralized collagen and the adhesive resin both take part in hybrid layer formation. [2] This procedure needs enough surface moisture after etchant removal; otherwise hybrid layer formation will be decreased because of the collapse of collagen fibers. This is while the Er:YAG laser does not demineralize dentin surface and no collagen will be exposed which is important in hybrid layer formation. [15] Visuri et al., showed, remaining of peritubular dentin after Er:YAG laser irradiation, in return of collagen fibers, may be helpful to obtain stronger adhesion to the dentin, due to its more mineral content in comparison with intertubular dentin. [25]

Er:YAG laser irradiation vaporizes the water content of hard immediately which results in irregular surface. These irregularities work as a mechanical retention increasing adhesion of restoration to tooth hard tissue [15] which can be a substitution for acid etching technique, not only in microscopic dimensions, but also in macroscopic and clinical appearance.


   Conclusion Top


There was no significant difference in evaluating microleakeage degree of cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser and diamond bur. The results showed a significant difference in microleakage degree between enamel and cementum margins.

 
   References Top

1.Gutknekht N, Apel C, Schafer C, Lampert F. Microleakage of composite filling in Er, Cr:YSGG laser-prepared class II cavities. Lasers Surg Med 2001;28:371-4.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Shahabi S, Chiniforoush N, Bahramian H, Monzavi A, Baghalian A, Kharazifard MJ. The effect of erbium family laser on tensile bond strength of composite to dentin in comparison with conventional method. Lasers Med Sci 2012;28:139-42.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Carvalho RM, Yoshiyama M, Pashley EL, Pashley DH. In vitro study on dimensional changes of human dentine after demineralization. Arch Oral Biol 1996;41:369-77.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Buonocuore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1995;34:849-53.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Hibst R, Keller U. Experimental studies of the application of Er:YAG laser on dental hard substances: I. Measurement of the ablation rate. Lasers Surg Med 1989;9:338-44.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Roebuck EM, Sauders WP, Whitters CJ. Influence of Erbium:YAG laser energies on the microleakage of Class V resin-based composite restorations. Am J Dent 2000;13:280-4.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Keller U, Hibst R. Experimental studies of the application of the Er:YAG laser on dental hard substances: II. Light microscopic and SEM investigations. Lasers Surg Med 1989;9:345-51.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Keller U, Hibst R. Effects of Er-YAG laser on enamel bonding of composite materials. Proc SPIE 1993;1880:163-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Wright GZ, McConnell RJ, Keller U. microleakage of class V composite restorations prepared conventionally with those prepared with an Er:YAG laser: A pilot study. Pediatr Dent 1993;15:425-6.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Chinellatti MA, Ramos RP, Chimello DT, Borsatto MC, Pecora JD, Palma-Dibb RG. Influence of the use of Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation and surface treatment in microleakage of resin-modified glass ionomer restorations. Oper Dent 2004;29:430-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Corona SA, Borsatto MC, Dibb RG, Ramos RP, Brugnera A, Pecora JD. Microleakage of class V resin composite restorations after bur, air-abrasion or Er:Yag laser preparation. Oper Dent 2001;26:491-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Aranha AC, Turbino ML, Powell GL, Eduardo Cde P. Assessing microleakage of class V resin composite restorations after Er:YAG laser and burpreparation. Lasers Surg Med 2005;37:172-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Keller U, Hibst R, Geursten W, Schilke R, Heidemann D, Klaiber B, et al. Erbium:YAG laser application in caries therapy. Evaluation of patient perception and acceptance. J Dent 1998;26:649-56.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Matsumoto K, Nakamura Y, Mazeki K, Kimura Y. Clinical dental application of Er:YAG laser for Class V cavity preparation. J Clin Laser Med Surg 1996;14:123-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Ceballos L, Osorio R, Toledano M, Marshall GW. Microleakage of composite restorations aftervacid or Er-YAG laser cavity treatments. Dent Mater 2001;17:340-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Shahabi S, Ebrahimpour L, Walsh LJ. Microleakage of composite resin restorations in cervical cavities prepared by Er, Cr:YSGG laser radiation. Aust Dent J 2008;53:172-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Palma Dibb RG, Milori Corona SA, Borsatto MC, Ferreira KC, Pereira Ramos R, Djalma Pecora J. Assessing microleakage on class V composite resin restorations after Er:YAG laser preparation varying the adhesive systems. J Clin Laser Med Surg 2002;20:129-33.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Cagidiaco MC, Ferrari M, Vichi A, Davidson CL. Mapping of tubule and intertubule surface areas available for bonding in class V and in class II preparations. J Dent 1997;25:379-89.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Kimyai S, Ajami AA, Chaharom ME, Oskoee JS. Comparison of microleakage of three adhesive systems in class V composite restorations prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG laser. Photomed Laser Surg 2010;28:505-10.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Moldes VL, Capp CL, Navarro RS, Matos AB, Youssef MN, Cassoni A. In vitro microleakage of composite restorations prepared by Er:YAG/Er,Cr:YSGG lasers and conventional drillsassociated with two adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent 2009;11:221-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Ben-Amar. Microleakage of composite restorations. Am J Dent 1989;2:175-80.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Phair CB, Fuller JL. Microleakage of composite resin restorations with cementum margins. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:361-4.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.Sidhu SK. The effect of acid-etched dentin on marginal seal. Quintessence Int 1994;25:797-800.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.Marshall GW Jr, Marshall SJ, Kinney JH, Balooch M. The dentin substrate: Structure and properties related to bonding. J Dent 1997;25:441-58.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Visuri SR, Gilbert JL, Wright DD, Wigdor HA, Walsh JT Jr. Shear strength of composite bonded to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin. J Dent Res 1996;75:599-605.  Back to cited text no. 25
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Nasim Chiniforush
Laser Research Center of Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.131778

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2214    
    Printed56    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded238    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal