Effect of Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation on the apical sealing ability of AH Plus/gutta-percha and Hybrid Root Seal/Resilon Combinations.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the sealing ability of 2 different resin-based endodontic filling systems after smear layer removal with 2 different techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Extracted human single-rooted teeth (n = 74) were instrumented using HERO Shaper rotary instruments and irrigated with 1 mL of 2.5% NaOCl between each instrument. Additionally, the canals received either an extra 3-minute rinse with 2 mL of 17% EDTA or a 40-second Er,Cr:YSGG laser treatment. The root canals were filled with either Hybrid Root Seal/Resilon combination or AH Plus/gutta-percha combination using lateral condensation technique (n = 11). Apical leakage quantity was measured with the computerized fluid filtration meter at 1 and 4 weeks. One root from each group, which was not submitted to the fluid filtration test, was selected for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using 3-way ANOVA and the post hoc Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: A significant decrease was observed in the microleakage values of all the experimental groups tested with time (P < .0001). EDTA + AH Plus/gutta-percha combination exhibited the least microleakage, whereas laser irradiation + Hybrid Root Seal/Resilon combination showed the greatest microleakage at each of the 2 time periods. Each experimental combination exhibited architecture in SEM that seemed to correlate with its sealing performance. CONCLUSION: Er,Cr:YSGG laser treatment does not enhance the sealing ability of the sealers compared with EDTA application. The root canal adaptation and sealing ability of the Hybrid Root Seal/Resilon combination is not superior to that of the AH Plus/gutta-percha combination.

Microleakage and scanning electron microscopy evaluation of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites prepared by erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser and bur.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of all-in-one self-etch adhesives and their respective nanocomposites in class V cavities prepared by erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser and bur. Class V cavities were prepared on both buccal and lingual surfaces of 72 premolars by Er:YAG laser or bur and divided into six groups (n = 24). The occlusal margins were enamel and the cervical margins were cementum. The groups were as follows: group 1 Er:YAG laser preparation (E) + Xeno V (X) + CeramX (C); group 2 bur preparation (B) + X + C; group 3 E + AdheSE One (A) + Tetric EvoCeram (T); group 4 B + A + T; group 5 E + Clearfil S3 Bond (CSB) + Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (CME); group 6 B + CSB + CME. All teeth were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, then thermocycled 500 times (5-55 degrees C). Ten teeth from each group were chosen for the microleakage investigation and two teeth for the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation. The teeth that were prepared for the microleakage test were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. After immersion, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (P < 0.05). Bur-prepared cavities presented less microleakage in all groups for enamel (P < 0.05); however, in cervical margins, there were no differences between laser-prepared and bur-prepared cavities in the Xeno V + CeramX and AdheSE One + Tetric EvoCeram groups (P > 0.05). SEM observations of restorative material-dentin interfaces seemed to correspond with those of the microleakage test. Microleakage at the cervical interfaces was greater than that at the occlusal interfaces. Er:YAG laser-prepared class V cavities yielded more microleakage in occlusal margins with all-in-one self-etch adhesives and the respective manufacturer's nanocomposites.

Leakage pathway of different nano-restorative materials in class V cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur preparation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of different nano-restorative materials in Class V cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser and bur preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 72 premolars by Er:YAG laser or bur. The occlusal margins were in enamel and the cervical margins were in cementum. Teeth were randomly assigned to six groups of 12 teeth (n = 24 cavities) each as follows: Group 1, Er:YAG laser preparation (E)+Ketac N100 (K); Group 2, bur preparation (B)+K; Group 3, E+Adper Prompt L-Pop (A)+Filtek Supreme XT Flow (FSF); Group 4, B+A+FSF; Group 5, E+A+Filtek Supreme XT (FS); Group 6, B+A+FS. All teeth were thermocycled 500 times. Ten teeth from each group were chosen for the microleakage investigation and two teeth for the scanning electron microscope evaluation. Teeth prepared for the microleakage test were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. Afterwards, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope for dye penetration. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: There were significant differences between occlusal and cervical regions for all groups (p < 0.05) except for Group 1. Bur-prepared cavities showed less microleakage in all groups for enamel (p < 0.05); however, in cementum there were no significant differences between the bur- and laser-prepared cavities in nano-glass ionomer and flowable composite groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: It may be concluded that the cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser showed higher degree of microleakage than those conventionally prepared by bur, regardless of the restorative material at enamel margins.

Microleakage of class V cavities with different adhesive systems prepared by a diamond instrument and different parameters of Er:YAG laser irradiation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage of composite resin restorations using two different dentine adhesive systems prepared with a diamond instrument and different parameters of Er:YAG laser irradiation. BACKGROUND DATA: Information on this topic with regard to preparing class V cavities with different parameters of Er:YAG laser irradiation and adhesive systems is scarce. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred class V cavities were assigned to ten groups (n = 20 each): group 1: Er:YAG laser (5 Hz, 600 mJ) + phosphoric acid (PA) + Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB2); group 2: Er:YAG laser (10 Hz, 300 mJ) + PA + ASB2; group 3: Er:YAG laser (15 Hz, 200 mJ) + PA + ASB2; group 4: Er:YAG laser (20 Hz, 150 mJ) + PA + ASB2; group 5: diamond instrument + PA + ASB2; group 6: Er:YAG laser (5 Hz, 600 mJ) + Adper Prompt L-Pop (APLP); group 7: Er:YAG laser (10 Hz, 300 mJ) + APLP; group 8: Er:YAG laser (15 Hz, 200 mJ) + APLP; group 9: Er:YAG laser (20 Hz, 150 mJ) + APLP; and group 10: diamond instrument + APLP. Cavities were restored with a nanofill composite (Filtek Supreme XT Body). After thermocycling, the specimens were stained with 0.5% aqueous basic fuchsin dye and sectioned bucco-lingually. Dye penetration was then scored. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction. The Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used to compare occlusal and gingival scores. RESULTS: Leakage was seen in all groups at both the occlusal and gingival margins. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistically significant differences among the 10 groups (p < 0.001). The gingival margins had more microleakage than the occlusal margins (p < 0.001). Pairwise analysis by the Mann-Whitney U test showed that statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in microleakage were found between groups 3 and 5 (3 > 5), 5 and 7 (7 > 5), and 7 and 8 (7 > 8) at the gingival margin, and between groups 3 and 6 (6 > 3), 3 and 7 (7 > 3), 4 and 6 (6 > 4), and 4 and 7 (7 > 4) at the occlusal margin. CONCLUSION: We concluded that for all groups, microleakage values were higher at the gingival margins. The use of the Er:YAG laser for cavity preparation with different parameters and different dentine adhesive systems influenced the marginal sealing of composite resin restorations.

Sealing capacity of a flowable composite, as a protective base, with different conditioning methods in nonvital bleaching.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the microleakage of a nano-flowable composite used as a protective base, applied with different conditioning methods in nonvital bleaching. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty root-filled teeth were divided into four treatment groups (n = 10 per group): group 1--Er:YAG laser etching + Adper Single Bond 2; group 2-37% phosphoric acid + Adper Single Bond 2; group 3--Adper Prompt L-Pop; and group 4--No treatment. A nano-flowable composite (Filtek Supreme Flow) base was used in each group. For a 24-h period, 40% hydrogen peroxide solution was applied to the pulp chambers, and they were subsequently subjected to a dye (silver nitrate) challenge for 4 h. After the dye was washed out with water, each tooth was cut in half and both halves were exposed to sunlight for 2 h to promote oxidation of the dye, turning it black. Finally the sections were examined under 4x magnification to determine the degree of leakage as assessed with a four-point scale. Statistical analysis was performed with the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups 1, 2, and 3 (p > 0.05), but the teeth in group 4 had significantly higher microleakage scores than the teeth in the other groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Self-etching adhesive application, Er:YAG laser etching, and phosphoric acid etching combined with an adhesive system all showed similar microleakge scores when a nano-flowable composite was applied as a protective base in nonvital bleaching.

Effect of two light-emitting diode (LED) and one halogen curing light on the microleakage of Class V flowable composite restorations.

AIM: The disadvantages of light cured composite resin materials with respect to microleakage are predominantly a result of polymerization shrinkage upon curing. It has been shown curing methods play a significant role in polymerization shrinkage of light-cured composite resins. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of light-emitting diode (LED) light curing units (LCUs) compared with a halogen LCU on microleakage of three different flowable composites using self-etch adhesives. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 63 extracted human premolars were prepared with standardized Class V cavity preparations on the buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth. The occlusal margin of the cavities was located on the enamel and the gingival margin was on dentin. Teeth were randomly assigned to three groups of 21 teeth each as follows: Group 1: Adper Prompt L-Pop + Filtek Flow (3M ESPE); Group 2: AdheSE + Tetric Flow (Ivoclar, Vivadent); and Group 3: Clearfil Protect Bond + Clearfil Protect Liner F (Kuraray Medical Inc.). All the groups were subdivided into three groups according to the curing lights used (n=7). Two LED LCUs, Elipar FreeLight and Elipar FreeLight 2 (3M ESPE), and one halogen-based LCU, Hilux Expert (Benlioglu ), were used. All teeth were then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye solution for 24 hours after thermocycling (500 cycles; between 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C). The teeth then were longitudinally sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope (40X magnification) by two examiners. The degree of dye penetration was recorded separately for enamel and dentin. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests with the Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in microleakage were observed between groups either on enamel or dentin (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: With the limitation of this in vitro study, the differences in microleakage between LCUs used were not statistically significantly different. Elipar Free Light 2 reduces curing time which can be considered as an advantage.